4 ms·

This will no longer be the case once you can use WebRTC data channels. Its just a matter of making sure your server can support the protocol.

k__ 13y ago
The data channels run on UDP per default?
- zurn 13y ago
  Yes, DTLS over SCTP over UDP. TCP doesn't really work if you want to do NAT traversal, which WebRTC needs to do because it's aimed at P2P.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    And NAT traversal only works if you focus on broken NAT implementations. If you have a "secure" NAT like a firewall may implement, then there is no such thing as workable NAT traversal.
    - zurn 13y ago
      You have that backwards! NATs are tasked to facilitate communications (same as routers). Yes, firewalls can be configured to restrict communications. And you can have a combined NAT+firewall that is so configured. Just likes routers vs firewalls. Routers forward packets as well as they know how, firewalls selectively drop them, router-FW combos can configured either way. Reliance on restrictive centralized firewalls is a pretty 1990s mindset, and doesn't lead to good security outcomes in the current world where users constantly suffle devices between networks, and vpn in to your network, etc. You just end up making your internal network unusable for production work.
      - MichaelGG 13y ago
        That's an interesting viewpoint and would go against practically everyone's (except the IETF's) expectation for the NAT to provide a default firewall-esque policy. I suppose if you view NAT to "facilitate communications" then mapping a port for all inbound IPs instead of symmetric makes sense.
        zurn 13y ago
        In my experience people behind NAT very much like Skype, games, WebRTC, file sharing etc to work. They're usually not very knowledgeable about firewalls but most often used host-based firewalls. Which is good since they're generally much more easier to configure according to your app needs.

k__ 13y ago

The data channels run on UDP per default?

zurn 13y ago
Yes, DTLS over SCTP over UDP. TCP doesn't really work if you want to do NAT traversal, which WebRTC needs to do because it's aimed at P2P.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  And NAT traversal only works if you focus on broken NAT implementations. If you have a "secure" NAT like a firewall may implement, then there is no such thing as workable NAT traversal.
  - zurn 13y ago
    You have that backwards! NATs are tasked to facilitate communications (same as routers). Yes, firewalls can be configured to restrict communications. And you can have a combined NAT+firewall that is so configured. Just likes routers vs firewalls. Routers forward packets as well as they know how, firewalls selectively drop them, router-FW combos can configured either way. Reliance on restrictive centralized firewalls is a pretty 1990s mindset, and doesn't lead to good security outcomes in the current world where users constantly suffle devices between networks, and vpn in to your network, etc. You just end up making your internal network unusable for production work.
    - MichaelGG 13y ago
      That's an interesting viewpoint and would go against practically everyone's (except the IETF's) expectation for the NAT to provide a default firewall-esque policy. I suppose if you view NAT to "facilitate communications" then mapping a port for all inbound IPs instead of symmetric makes sense.
      - zurn 13y ago
        In my experience people behind NAT very much like Skype, games, WebRTC, file sharing etc to work. They're usually not very knowledgeable about firewalls but most often used host-based firewalls. Which is good since they're generally much more easier to configure according to your app needs.