121–130 of 132 posts
> Remote 'fireside chats' where one or multiple people can have a video call with an audience of 10,000+ people in real time ( I keep hearing this term 'fireside chat' used like this, and ever time there's no actual fire and it's not intimate (10k viewers?). What is it supposed to mean?
I'd love to know more about > Calls uses anycast for every connection, so every packet is always routed to the closest Cloudflare location. Is this true for the UDP media (and data channels) traffic, or just for the initial signaling and connection setup? If the UDP traffic is all anycast, that's truly impressive engineering work. Bravo!
It is true, both media and signaling is over anycast and advertised from every Cloudflare location. We manage things like ICE and DTLS state in a distributed way.
Super happy to be part of the super talented team that made this happen!
> Remote 'fireside chats' where one or multiple people can have a video call with an audience of 10,000+ people in real time ( I keep hearing this term 'fireside chat' used like this, and ever time there's no actual fire and it's not intimate (10k viewers?). What is it supposed to mean?
I'd love to know more about > Calls uses anycast for every connection, so every packet is always routed to the closest Cloudflare location. Is this true for the UDP media (and data channels) traffic, or just for the initial signaling and connection setup? If the UDP traffic is all anycast, that's truly impressive engineering work. Bravo!
Speculating here, but I would read this as "anycast" as a concept, where each user is connected to the closest location. versus anycast as in the IP protocol. The complexity far outweighs benefits with routing each UDP packet to different servers within the same session.
I don't think they've talked much about what happens if the connections gets routed to a different PoP mid-stream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the question you need to ask is: who can build, maintain and operate the needed infrastructure for "task x" better? Cloudflare or you? For many (most) use cases, CF will operate at a resilience and stability and professionality level far above what they can achieve themselves.
Of course Cloudflare can do it better. That’s not the argument rixthefox presented. The problem rixthefox stated was that when Cloudflare does go down, they take half the internet with them at once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Honest question, does that matter? Ie if we say that they can do it better than i can, hypothetically that means i'll have more downtime than them - yes? Yes. > If that's true for everyone, then the internet will, in aggregate, be down less with CF than if we distributed better. That depends on what we define as “the internet”. If we use any single service as a point of measure, then “the internet” will have more d…
This isn’t really a value proposition to any of the companies that are looking to use cloudflare. When something big like AWS goes down, it’s just understood by users that stuff is all broken everywhere. It’s not really an opportunity to get more users just because your thing is still up during this huge outage. On top of that, if the alternative is less reliable than CF, any marginal gain in users during that outage…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course Cloudflare can do it better. That’s not the argument rixthefox presented. The problem rixthefox stated was that when Cloudflare does go down, they take half the internet with them at once.
So if I understand your reasoning correctly, you’d rather have 60 minutes of downtime per self hosted service per year (all at different times), than 60 minutes of downtime per decade for all these services at the same time (all fixed once CF fix their incident)?
It’s like with stocks. A single stock I own might go bust, but with a diversified portfolio, I won’t really care. But if ⅓ of all stocks go bust at the same time, that’s a market crash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You never really see that if AWS adds a product, or GCP adds a product or any other products from bigger CDNs. Accusations of hypocrisy is not an argument. Instead of accusing me (and all other detractors) of not criticizing others enough, please elaborate why this isn’t what I described. Cloudflare (and others) keep releasing products which makes their central role more central and less vulnerable to competition.…
From that line of argument, we should really get folks off Linux. And nginx.
Also, the comparison is flawed, since neither Linux nor Nginx are network services.
Why did Cloudflare say "encryption" but not "end-to-end encryption"? Should we be reading deeper into this?
Short answer: it's not currently possible to do true end-to-end encryption through media servers with a key that is inaccessible from user space. Longer answer... WebRTC was designed as a fundamentally peer-to-peer protocol. The spec defines (and basically mandates) the use of end-to-end encryption. Which is great! Among other things, this means that browsers can implement e2e in a standardized and provably secure wa…