Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

chromestatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#111

Post by apitman »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #104
apitman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 isn't going to happen. Most people's needs are met by NAT for clients and SNI routing for servers. We ran out of IPv4 addresses years ago. If it was actually a problem it would have happened then. It makes me said for the p2p internet but it's true.

"We are introducing a new charge for public IPv4 addresses. Effective February 1, 2024 there will be a charge of $0.005 per IP per hour for all public IPv4 addresses" https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address...

Yes and setting up a single IPv4 VPS as load balancer with SNI routing in front of IPv6-only instances solves that.

Most people are probably using ELB anyway.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#112

Post by apitman »

justahuman74 wrote: post #44
apitman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 isn't going to happen. Most people's needs are met by NAT for clients and SNI routing for servers. We ran out of IPv4 addresses years ago. If it was actually a problem it would have happened then. It makes me said for the p2p internet but it's true.

> If it was actually a problem It became a problem precisely the moment AWS starting charging for ipv4 addresses. "IPv4 will cost our company X dollars in 2026, supporting IPv6 by 2026 will cost Y dollars, a Z% saving" There's now a tangible motivator for various corporate systems to at least support ipv6 everywhere - which was the real ipv6 impediment. Residential ISP appear to be very capable of moving to v6, there…

Yes and setting up a single IPv4 VPS as load balancer with SNI routing in front of IPv6-only instances solves that.

Most people are probably using ELB anyway

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#114

Post by apitman »

immibis wrote: post #73
apitman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 isn't going to happen. Most people's needs are met by NAT for clients and SNI routing for servers. We ran out of IPv4 addresses years ago. If it was actually a problem it would have happened then. It makes me said for the p2p internet but it's true.

What do you mean not going to happen? It's already happening. It's about 45% of internet packets.

The sun is about 45% of the way through its life.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#116

Post by apitman »

remram wrote: post #101
paulddraper wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not happening for 55%. Try to connect to github.com over IPv6.

It doesn't work now so it's never going to work?

GitHub might work someday. Wide enough adoption that you can host a service without an IPv4 address will never happen.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#118

Post by rad_gruchalski »

troupo wrote: post #97
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Handing the world wide webs future to Google Nobody handed anything to anyone. They go with the flow. The flow is driven by people who use their products. The browser is how Google delivers their products so it’s kinda difficult to blame them for trying to push the envelope but there are alternatives to Chrome.

> They go with the flow. The ancient history of just 10-15 years ago shows Google aggressively marketing Chrome across all of its not inconsiderable properties like search and Youtube, and sabotaging other browsers while they were at it: https://archive.is/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/joh...

Indeed. There was time I myself used it as my primary browser and recommended it to everyone around. That changed when they started insisting on signing into the account to „make the most out of it” so I went back to Firefox. Since then I stopped caring. I know, virtue signalling. My point is: nobody handed anything over to Google. At the time alternatives sucked so they won the market. But today we have great alternatives.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#119

Post by modeless »

typedef_struct wrote: post #105
modeless wrote: post #10

I think a lot of people don't realize it's possible to use UDP in browsers today with WebRTC DataChannel. I have a demo of multiplayer Quake III using peer-to-peer UDP here: https://thelongestyard.link/ Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications, but it's possible to do almost any kind of networking you want on the web if you control both sides of the connection.

This looks to use Web Sockets, not WebRTC, right? I don't see any RTCPeerConnection, and the peerServer variable is unused. I ask because I've spent multiple days trying to get a viable non-local WebRTC connection going with no luck. view-source: https://thelongestyard.link/q3a-demo/?server=Seveja

Web sockets are only used for WebRTC connection establishment. The code that creates the RTCPeerConnection is part of the Emscripten-generated JavaScript bundle. I'm using a library called HumbleNet to emulate Berkeley sockets over WebRTC.

The code is here: https://github.com/jdarpinian/ioq3 and here: https://github.com/jdarpinian/HumbleNet. For example, here is the file where the RTCPeerConnection is created: https://github.com/jdarpinian/HumbleNet/blob/master/src/humb...

I feel your pain. WebRTC is extremely difficult to use.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#120

Post by FpUser »

All nice and welcome. At what point browser becomes full blown OS with the same functionality and associated vulnerabilities yet still less performant as it sites on top of other OS and goes through more layers. And of course ran and driven by one of the largest privacy invader and spammer of the world
Post reply on HN