WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC • Hacker News Board

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#141

Post by codethief » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 9:55 AM UTC

yc12340 wrote: post #132

codethief wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I would blame NAT. You can easily disable that. What you can't disable is the asymmetry of consumer internet connections (upload << download) and the fact that most consumer devices are not running (or connected to the internet) 24/7.

> I'm not sure I would blame NAT. You can easily disable that This is predominately USA mentality. In the rest of the world widespread use of carrier-grade NAT predates mobile networks by decades. Many residential ISPs don't hand out public IPv4 addresses or require extra payment for them. Some of those ISPs got their first IP block (or even single address!) from someone and never bothered with whole "ask IANA for ad…

Hmmm I suppose my view is strongly biased then. I've lived outside the US most of my life and have always had my own IPv4 address at home.

And sure, as IPv4 addresses are now exhausted, carrier-grade NAT is getting increasingly common. But I would have said the issue started way before that.

> In the rest of the world widespread use of carrier-grade NAT predates mobile networks by decades. […] Some of those ISPs got their first IP block (or even single address!) from someone and never bothered with whole "ask IANA for addresses" thing.

Do you happen to have a source here? Because carrier-grade NAT predating mobile networks by decades is news to me.

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#142

Post by codethief » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 9:57 AM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #85

codethief wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I would blame NAT. You can easily disable that. What you can't disable is the asymmetry of consumer internet connections (upload << download) and the fact that most consumer devices are not running (or connected to the internet) 24/7.

Anything that requires a manual step will be at a huge disadvantage compared to something that doesn't. People have better things to do with their life than read router manuals.

That's true. But this is a general problem. Even if you weren't sitting behind a NAT, you would still have to harden your firewall and so on if you wanted to run a server at home. So it's definitely not without work either way.

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#143

Post by codethief » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 9:59 AM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #121

api wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not NAT. Firewalls. You don't need NAT to have a firewall.

Yup. There is no NAT in my home, but there is a firewall. Every device in my home has public IPs, but some of them aren't allowed to talk to the outside world or are restricted on who can / can't talk to them and how.

If I may ask, what's your setup? What router (and what software on it) are you using?

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#144

Post by expialidocious » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 11:09 AM UTC

jzer0cool wrote: post #131

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #64

Who pays for the stun and turn servers?

Had to look it up because I did not know: A STUN server is used to get an external network address. TURN servers are used to relay traffic if direct (peer to peer) connection fails. Could someone share practical usages of these commonly today to help me better grasp usage for these servers as a starting point?

The Twilio page you posted was good.

I really like BlogGeek.me for WebRTC info. Here's an entry on the various servers involved.

https://bloggeek.me/webrtc-server/

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#145

Post by jonplackett » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 11:12 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #91

jonplackett wrote: post #90

How secure is this?

From the github repo (original caps): THIS PROJECT IS STILL IN EARLY DEVELOPMENT, USES EXPERIMENTAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC LIBRARIES, AND HAS NOT HAD ANY KIND OF SECURITY OR CRYPTOGRAPHY REVIEWS. IT MIGHT BE BROKEN AND UNSAFE.

I’ll rephrase my question - how secure is this attempting to be?

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#146

Post by rakoo » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 11:47 AM UTC

anderspitman wrote: post #127

rakoo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stumbled upon patchbay the other day and I thought it was really cool, now I just need to find a good excuse to toy with it. Just a heads up: the homepage still references the old index.html which you say in your blog article might have the wrong paths. Indeed looking at the docs all paths require a mode

Do you have an example of where it's incorrect? I'm pretty sure it's the right index.html. Note that it's still very similar to the blog post.

There is no mention of the req/res flow (someone could POST to /req, expecting it to be a MPMC queue)

In the docs it seems MPMC queues should start with /queue, but it turns out that anything that's not /pubsub or /req,/res just works, so is it really needed ?

Also the doc doesn't specify that pb-method is available to get the requester's method in the request/respond protocol

Anyway those are just minor things, thanks for the service it really rocks

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#147

Post by minetest2048 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #14

api wrote: post #10

It's 2020, and people are elated to discover that it is possible to transfer a file directly between two systems on the Internet. True story: I was giving a guest lecture on network virtualization at UCI and demoing ZeroTier. One student came up afterwords and asked me how traffic could flow between systems without "a cloud." Evidently the idea that data could just go directly from point A to point B was utterly, com…

I blame NAT. Treating end-users like second-class netizen consumers trained people to "need" the cloud to do perfectly normal peer-to-peer things.

My ISP really hates servers to the point that they block ports below 1024 iirc, even though it have a real dynamic public IP

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#148

Post by mgerb » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

Seems to work well sending images from my phone, but please let me select multiple at one time.

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#149

Post by gigatexal » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

Sean-Der wrote: post #77

gigatexal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it you on the GoTime podcast? If so the enthusiasm for webrtc and go just motivated me a ton. Kudos.

Yes I was! Thanks for listening :) I really want to get more Go developers into WebRTC/P2P, that was my goal for this year. It is hard to convince conference developers WebRTC is more interesting then all the DevsOps stuff! I am putting in the good fight though.

Doing podcasts and beating the drum and these novel things built on WebRTC will get you there. Keep it up!

Re: WebWormHole: Send files quickly using WebRTC

#150

Post by api » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

minetest2048 wrote: post #147

_jal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I blame NAT. Treating end-users like second-class netizen consumers trained people to "need" the cloud to do perfectly normal peer-to-peer things.

My ISP really hates servers to the point that they block ports below 1024 iirc, even though it have a real dynamic public IP

This is all about charging business customers 3-4X more for the same service. They don't want businesses to get residential class connections. Business links are unblocked.