Is the intent to replace the IP protocol ever?
Iroh 1.0
151–160 of 488 posts
Re: Iroh 1.0
#152I don't understand the problem its trying to solve in the first place, IP works just fine, such as DNS. There is already IPv6 and quic, you need vendor and major software to have any traction in that field.
From what I can tell Iroh seems to be trying to create the missing Session layer from the OSI model. Another example of trying to do this is Cisco's Location-Identity Separation Protocol.
Lack of a true session layer in TCP/IP is why vmotion is normally only possible in a single broadcast domain because in this situation you only really use mac addresses for addressing and can thus use the IP as a stable identifier when the MAC address changes after a vmotion. And the switch mac address table handles the mapping.
Re: Iroh 1.0
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't the same functionality - if I'm shipping a video conferencing application, tsnet would require all my customers be in my tailnet.
but if I am shipping a video conferencing application (where I control both the client and the server) I don't need nat traversal anymore. My clients will have outgoing connections to whichever co-ordination server I choose. Tailscale is great for bringing devices/apps into a secure network when I cannot modify them in any way. If I have full access to the source code for everything, the story changes completely.
What if you build a p2p video conferencing app with user controlled co-ordinator "server". Server in quotes, because maybe iroh works through the browser?
Re: Iroh 1.0
#154Ive been prototyping with Iroh for awhile.
I think this tech (modern p2p) represents what agent-to-agent (a2a) should be built on.
Every agent should be reachable to each other without hosting itself as an http server.
related prototypes
Re: Iroh 1.0
#155I am one of the iroh developers. A question that frequently comes up: when will iroh support webrtc, or BLE, or LoRa, or ... Iroh as of now supports only IPv4, IPv6 and relay transports out of the box. There is such a large variety of potentially interesting transports out there that we can't support all of them without turning the codebase into an unmaintainable maze of feature flags. But we have added the ability t…
Hi! As someone who has historically built on libp2p, I'd love to see an updated comparison focused on app developers!
Last year, I was trying to choose between the two and went with that I know... but it feels like there's real momentum on Iroh's side.
Re: Iroh 1.0
#156Nice video production, but as you can see on this thread of nerds, the messaging is not clear.. Content first, presentation later.
Re: Iroh 1.0
#157How is this different from https://holepunch.to/ ?
Holepunch, formerly hypercore, formerly dat, is a great project. Their main language is js, which makes it difficult to embed into anything but js/ts applications.
Also, they are very principled when it comes to peer to peer purity, whereas iroh is a bit more pragmatic. We use dedicated relays to faciliate hole punching, whereas holepunch tries to use other peers as a temporary relay for hole punching messages.
Another difference is that holepunch have their own DHT, where we have a less decentralised address lookup service by default and use the mainline DHT as a fully p2p alternative.
So TLDR if you are doing js in the browser, holepunch.to might be a good fit. If you work on native mobile apps or embedded devices, iroh will be better since it is pretty frugal. If you work with node.js, both will work. Just evaluate them both and use what works better for you.
E.g. we support tiny embedded devices such as esp32. https://www.iroh.computer/blog/iroh-on-esp32
Re: Iroh 1.0
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but what does this solve that VPNs didn't already address?
vpns typically add at least one hop. this has the possibility of connecting directly via hole punching
Cisco Dynamic Multipoint VPN will start by connecting to a central VPN server and then learn the public IPs of endpoints and automatically create VPN tunnels to them. It can scale to thousands of endpoints.
Re: Iroh 1.0
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes if you want to. Routers are a necessary abstraction from the IPv4 days and seems it will stick around for a long time, and we need solutions sometimes around those topologies.
Are you conflating a router with SNAT? Routers as in L3 routing are not an "IPv4 only abstraction."
Yes I used it in place of NAT for most casual users at home, which is presumably what the user above originally meant.
Re: Iroh 1.0
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libp2p does have quic, at least the rust implementation.
libp2p does have QUIC, but it is one of many possible transports. So libp2p builds many things on top of the underlying transport where we use QUIC directly and use existing mechanisms such as TLS ALPNs for protocol negotiation. We also use the stream multiplexing that is built into QUIC instead of putting a stream multiplexer on top of QUIC. You can think about it like this: libp2p abstracts transports as streams, a…
Minor clarifications, but libp2p also uses TLS ALPN for protocol negotiation, and also uses native quic streams - there is no additional muxer layer when using quic.
Iroh is still awesome.