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

41–50 of 171 posts

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#41

Post by apitman »

huggingmouth wrote: post #32
modeless wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you do need a connection establishment server, but in most cases traffic can flow directly between peers after connection establishment. The reality of the modern internet is even with native sockets many if not most peers will not be able to establish a direct peer-to-peer connection without the involvement of a connection establishment server anyway due to firewalls, NAT, etc. So it's not as big of a downgrade…

That changed (ahm.. will change) with ipv6. I was surprised to see that I can reach residential ipv6 lan hosts directly from the server. No firewalls, no nat. This remains true even with abusive isps that only give out /64 blocks. That said, I agree that peer to peer will never be seemless thanks mostly to said abusive isps.

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.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#43

Post by modeless »

mhitza wrote: post #16
modeless wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, what browser and OS?

Brave browser (Chromium via Flatpak) on the Steam Deck (Arch Linux) in Desktop mode with bluetooth connected mouse/keyboard.

Hmm, I bet the problem is my code expects touch events instead of mouse events when a touchscreen is present. Unfortunately I don't have a computer with both touchscreen and mouse here to test with so I didn't test that case. I did implement both gamepad and touch controls, so you could try them to see if they work.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#44

Post by justahuman74 »

apitman wrote: post #41
huggingmouth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That changed (ahm.. will change) with ipv6. I was surprised to see that I can reach residential ipv6 lan hosts directly from the server. No firewalls, no nat. This remains true even with abusive isps that only give out /64 blocks. That said, I agree that peer to peer will never be seemless thanks mostly to said abusive isps.

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 are lots of examples of that happening in their backends, and they've demonstrated already that they're plenty capable of giving end users boxes the just so happen to do ipv6.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#46

Post by girvo »

crote wrote: post #38
chocolatkey wrote: post #3

When reading https://github.com/WICG/direct-sockets/blob/main/docs%2Fexpl... , it's noted this is part of the "isolated web apps" proposal: https://github.com/WICG/isolated-web-apps/blob/main/README.m... , which is important context because the obvious reaction to this is the security nightmare

That doesn't really make it any better, if you ask me. The entire Isolated Web Apps proposal is a massive breakdown of the well-established boundaries provided by browsers. Every user understands two things about the internet: 1) check the URL before entering any sensitive data, and 2) don't run random stuff you download. The latter is heavily enforced by both Chrome and Windows complaining quite a bit if you're tryi…

Unfortunately this is the future. Handing the world wide webs future to Google was a mistake, and the only remedy is likely to come from an (unlikely) antitrust breakup or divestment.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#47

Post by lifthrasiir »

modeless wrote: post #37
lifthrasiir wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but DTLS is mandated for any UDP connections.

Is that a problem? Again, I'm talking about the scenario where you control both sides of the connection, not where you're trying to use UDP to communicate with a third party service.

I think all three comments including mine are essentially saying the same but in different viewpoints.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#48

Post by ignoramous »

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.

> Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications...

In fact runtimes like Node, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Fastly Compute, Bun et al run JS on servers, and will benefit from standardization of such features.

  [WICG] aims to provide a space for JavaScript runtimes to collaborate on API interoperability. We focus on documenting and improving interoperability of web platform APIs across runtimes (especially non-browser ones).
https://wintercg.org/

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#49

Post by 1oooqooq »

theamk wrote: post #39
huggingmouth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That changed (ahm.. will change) with ipv6. I was surprised to see that I can reach residential ipv6 lan hosts directly from the server. No firewalls, no nat. This remains true even with abusive isps that only give out /64 blocks. That said, I agree that peer to peer will never be seemless thanks mostly to said abusive isps.

I sure hope not, this will bring in a new era for internet worms. If some ISPs are not currently firewalling all incoming IPv6 connections, it's a major security risk. I hope some security researcher raises boise about that soon, and the firewalls will go closed by default.

it kinda of already begun

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#50

Post by kelnos »

huggingmouth wrote: post #32
modeless wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you do need a connection establishment server, but in most cases traffic can flow directly between peers after connection establishment. The reality of the modern internet is even with native sockets many if not most peers will not be able to establish a direct peer-to-peer connection without the involvement of a connection establishment server anyway due to firewalls, NAT, etc. So it's not as big of a downgrade…

That changed (ahm.. will change) with ipv6. I was surprised to see that I can reach residential ipv6 lan hosts directly from the server. No firewalls, no nat. This remains true even with abusive isps that only give out /64 blocks. That said, I agree that peer to peer will never be seemless thanks mostly to said abusive isps.

> I was surprised to see that I can reach residential ipv6 lan hosts directly from the server. No firewalls, no nat

No NAT, sure, that's great. But no firewalls? That's not great. Lots of misconfigured networks waiting for the right malware to come by...

Post reply on HN