On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 at 08:42:53 UTC, Radu wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 at 01:21:36 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Monday, 28 April 2014 at 18:36:59 UTC, Radu wrote:
Every time I read anything related to STUN/TURN, it becomes
obvious that these technologies were designed by some
committee. Metric tons of technical jargon and bureaucratic
overhead with an absurdly overcomplicated protocol to achieve
such a simple thing.
I implemented basic concept behind the TURN server, a TCP
relay:
http://worms2d.info/WormNAT2
The protocol is much simpler. As soon as a connection is
received, it allocates a port and sends it to the client. This
is the public port allocated for the connection - peers
wishing to connect to the client can connect to that port on
the relay server and talk as if they were talking to the
client directly. Every time a peer connects, the server
allocates a temporary port for the client to connect to, and
sends it over the original control connection. After the
client connects to said port, they can start talking to the
peer directly, as if there's no proxy in-between. This avoids
complicated handshakes, headers, and having to modify your
protocol and wrap every single packet in a stupid header. It's
also based on TCP, so you don't have to reimplement
reordering, retransmission etc. on top of UDP all over again.
It's not open-source, and although I could share the source
code, it's not Vibe'd (D1 in fact). The implementation is very
simple, though.
Vibed is in D1? Are you sure? I can't seem to find any mention
of that, it works with the current DMD, but then again I've
never tried to compile a D1 program with it.
No, he means that WormNAT2 is written in D1 and doesn't used
Vibe.d
Vibe.d is D2 only.
