Live data from Hacker News

Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

github.com

171–180 of 272 posts

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both clients send a packet to a server, server sends the remote IP to both parties, both parties try to send traffic to either’s remote IP. Unless their nat firewall is evil, this should work.

That's no longer p2p, that's using a relay server like TURN

It is p2p, the middle server isn’t relaying traffic.

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? With both users behind symmetrical NAT? TURN does not count as punching holes IMO.

Both clients send a packet to a server, server sends the remote IP to both parties, both parties try to send traffic to either’s remote IP. Unless their nat firewall is evil, this should work.

That doesn't work with "symmetric" NAT, which was specified by the person you are responding to: in that case, you can't rely on even a third party to figure out the port. To the extent to which this NAT paradigm is chosen for its efficient usage of ports, this is fixable using UPnP/NAT-PMP/PCP, but 1) I've (sadly) never seen a WebRTC implementation which takes advantage of these protocols, and 2) usually this isn't chosen for it's port efficiency: it is chosen because the NAT provider is incompetent (or even actively "evil", lol), and so they are almost certainly also not going to support a port mapping mechanism.

Regardless, I'll claim that the real disagreement is more over how common symmetric NAT is: I claim it is very rare, and that the vast majority of NAT isn't symmetric... however, in another thread, the user you are responding to claims that "in [their] country" they've never seen WebRTC work at all. I'd wager that's a pretty local issue, with what probably amounts to a local oligopoly built with similar limitations, but if you live in that world it must be brutal. However, that's not WebRTC's problem: we should implement port mapping in clients and ISPs should, to put it as kindly as feels fair, "fix their shit".

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#174
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebRTC, in fact, merely passes e2e encrypted packets through the TURN server (which, by the way, is only required if both sides are behind symmetric NAT: the vast majority of NAT doesn't cause this problem, though you might need to do STUN).

> the vast majority of NAT doesn't cause this problem Hard disagree, I've yet to meet anyone in my country that has gotten any WebRTC service to work at all .

FWIW, this doesn't actually imply we disagree, as maybe the vast majority of NATs aren't in your country ;P... we could both be right!

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#176
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we have that do-it-all Opera back? RSS, email, torrents. Feels like we had it all internet wise in 2007-2010 and then decided to throw it all away.

We did not decide it. Google decided to kill it. In countries where Opera had major share Google ran aggressive and deceptive (something something faster) campaign with billboards, radio and tv ads. Chrome ads were also everywhere on their homepages (google.com, youtube.com). But more nefariously, Google kept blocking features and apps based on the UA agent alone. Add lots of tech demos with their custom extensions.

Don't forget bundling Chrome with random apps (I remember cCleaner), making it install silently and automatically set itself as default.

I got caught by this as a kid a few times, I was technical enough to know what was going on, and reliant on a screen reader (which Chrome didn't support back then), so it was definitely a memorable annoyance for me, but I guess quite a few people didn't care.

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#177
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Vivaldi have both RSS and email, it's sort of the spiritual successor to the original Opera.... I miss the old Opera.

Vivaldi is roughly 1000 times slower. You need a pretty good computer to run that UI. It also lacks extremely basic features Opera had; like working LRU tab switching. I liked the idea, but it's impossible to recommend.

Is that true? I remember having to change a setting to switch the behavior of tab switching because it was LRU by default and I prefer it in visible order.

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#178
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> During the brief period that open Airdrop / bluetooth file transfer was a thing, there was a short fad of spamming porn to nearby people on public transport. So that was the end of that. My recollection is that the end of that was Apple's worry about the protests in China, not any concern about spam on public transit. (The first Google hit: https://restofworld.org/2022/apple-airdrop-china-memes/ .)

Seems like such a simple fix though... Blur the shared photos unless you tap preview. Or unless it's coming from someone you have in your contacts. Or just not have it show the preview at all and obviously you would decline files from someone you aren't expecting to receive files from. Or the simple fix of just not having this P2P transfer option always enabled. It should be off until you toggle it on because you and…

I believe that's what Apple did for AirDrop, "Everyone for 10 Minutes" is available in AirDrop settings. You can also use NFC (Near-field communication) to initiate a transfer with a non-Contact, while optionally establishing a Contact relationship. If only this were also available on Android.

I think it'd be great if Apple supported this, even if it meant an Apple AirDrop app for Android. Especially if it meant an Apple AirDrop app for Android.

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, your can do your dishes with the fire hose too.

People drive one ton pickup trucks to commute to their desk job. Or to get two bags of groceries.

Yes, and they kill more people on average by doing it.

Re: Peer-to-peer file transfers in the browser

#180
post #151

The thing that usually annoys me about these services is they tend to give you an intractably complex URL to share with the recipient. This poses a problem because every time I need such a P2P transfer, I’m communicating with someone over the phone and they need the file on a computer (which may not even be their own, so email is also cumbersome). https://file.pizza does this better than most, as the URL consists of…

https://rdrop.link gives you six characters. It's IMHO "telephoneable".
Post reply on HN