3 ms·

There's still a single point of failure: STUN server. Comment below talks about some ideas that are new to me about how to navigate around nAT

Sean-Der 6y ago
Unless we get NAT-PMP or PCP in the browser I don't know if we have an alternative. In the LAN I am excited about this thread https://discourse.wicg.io/t/idea-local-devices-api-lan-services/5056 https://discourse.wicg.io/t/idea-local-devices-api-lan-servi...
fckthisguy 6y ago
If you're running a Web etc app, you can always run a STUN server too. It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction. I'd love to see a pool of STUN servers available for this, with some randomization.
topranks 6y ago
IPv6? Still will need hole punching but no “IP discovery”.
SahAssar 6y ago
Why is a STUN server a single point of failure? You can specify multiple and a STUN server does not need to keep any state at all, it is simply a way for a client behind a NAT to get their public IP/port, right? STUN servers are cheap to run (they require very little processing and bandwidth as opposed to TURN), and setting up a few on each public cloud should be easy for anyone using ICE seriously. There are also public STUN servers still available, although I would not rely on them personally.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  That's interesting thanks for that info I've never setup webrtc with two stun servers. But still I think at least how I read single point of failure: it's reliant on a 3rd party. even if multiple 3rd party it's not realistically trustable in the way 'owning' the full stack would be. Though host your own as someone else points out below.
shams93 6y ago
Well you can give an array of stun/turn servers in the client without needing any special load balancer so its not really hard to do better than one point of failure.

3 ms·

There's still a single point of failure: STUN server. Comment below talks about some ideas that are new to me about how to navigate around nAT

by dillondoyle 6y ago

Sean-Der 6y ago
Unless we get NAT-PMP or PCP in the browser I don't know if we have an alternative. In the LAN I am excited about this thread https://discourse.wicg.io/t/idea-local-devices-api-lan-services/5056 https://discourse.wicg.io/t/idea-local-devices-api-lan-servi...
fckthisguy 6y ago
If you're running a Web etc app, you can always run a STUN server too. It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction. I'd love to see a pool of STUN servers available for this, with some randomization.
topranks 6y ago
IPv6? Still will need hole punching but no “IP discovery”.
SahAssar 6y ago
Why is a STUN server a single point of failure? You can specify multiple and a STUN server does not need to keep any state at all, it is simply a way for a client behind a NAT to get their public IP/port, right? STUN servers are cheap to run (they require very little processing and bandwidth as opposed to TURN), and setting up a few on each public cloud should be easy for anyone using ICE seriously. There are also public STUN servers still available, although I would not rely on them personally.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  That's interesting thanks for that info I've never setup webrtc with two stun servers. But still I think at least how I read single point of failure: it's reliant on a 3rd party. even if multiple 3rd party it's not realistically trustable in the way 'owning' the full stack would be. Though host your own as someone else points out below.
shams93 6y ago
Well you can give an array of stun/turn servers in the client without needing any special load balancer so its not really hard to do better than one point of failure.