mrmoka

5 ms·

1.
by mrmoka 9y ago
This is where DCCP or alternative protocols come in play.
2.
by mrmoka 9y ago
In case of DCCP it can be implemented over UDP utilising existing firewall support for UDP traffic.
3.
by mrmoka 9y ago
The main goal of this effort is to explore server-client communication scenarios.
4.
by mrmoka 9y ago
You probably have not read the document. It's clearly stating - there is no need for reliability and ordered delivery of data. The only requirement from security point of view is congestion control. Please, do read the topic content be
5.
by mrmoka 9y ago
UDP over IPv4 and IPv6 has source IP and source Port in header. This can be used for sticky routing through Load Balancers.
6.
by mrmoka 9y ago
You are absolutely right. But we need to remember - our motivation is to get a solution without most of TCP mechanisms to suit cases where it is not required. SCTP - is more of an alternative to TCP and implements mechanisms that are not re
7.
by mrmoka 9y ago
Ability to connect to raw TCP or UDP from a browser is a major security hole. Due to that, WebSockets were created were handshake is handled by browser transparently from developer ensuring port scanning is not possible. As well as to prese
8.
by mrmoka 9y ago
If there is alternative transport protocol to enable low-latency delivery as efficient as UDP, then it is worth exploring. UDP - is something been used by many industries for long time and is well known protocol to make a foundation from.
9.
by mrmoka 9y ago
> You can't compare WebSockets with WebRTC because the first one has a much larger implementation base across browsers than the later. This is exactly what I pointed out: WebSocket has much larger implementation base across browsers
10.
by mrmoka 9y ago
WebRTC is best option for media streams today for peer-to-peer cases. The goal of the topic is to explore simple option for server-client communication using low-latency communication, without reliability and without ordered delivery. WebRT
11.
by mrmoka 9y ago
Simply look at present state of WebRTC adoption by back-end services for use in server-client cases. Fist of all it is not designed for server-client cases. Second, after so many years, it is still not well adopted and used for server-clien
12.
by mrmoka 9y ago
Worth mentioning again: this effort is to explore server-client low-latency, not peer-to-peer scenarios which WebRTC solves well. And this is collaborative effort, not personal. So all input is welcome. I've used WebRTC for p2p and ser
13.
by mrmoka 9y ago
It is indeed a bit like chicken-and-egg situation here. But SCTP implements reliability and ordered delivery making it more of an alternative to TCP, than a solution for low-latency communication with cases where reliability and/or ord
14.
by mrmoka 9y ago
This is something that worth exploring further to identify if it is a requirement for a WebUDP implementation.
15.
by mrmoka 9y ago
> I'm very[1] familiar with the IP family of protocols. Great, you have an expertise to contribute. And with this discussion you already are. > If you don't know what your requirements are, you shouldn't be choosing a t
16.
by mrmoka 9y ago
SCTP have been mentioned in the repo: https://github.com/Maksims/web-udp-public/issues/1#issuecomm...
17.
by mrmoka 9y ago
This is valuable input, you are welcome to contribute in form of PR!
18.
by mrmoka 9y ago
Just looking at the complexity of "minimal" implementation only highlights the need for different solution.
19.
by mrmoka 9y ago
And with WebUDP life for those guys would be much easier.
20.
by mrmoka 9y ago
This spec been there for very long time, and has been adopted by FirefoxOS (deprecated platform). Which exposes low-level access to establish pure TCP and UDP connections with permissions flow by environment. It exposes many security concer
21.
by mrmoka 9y ago
This is collaborative effort. I act from my capabilities, but people with certain skillset are welcome to contribute with proper RFC.
22.
by mrmoka 9y ago
As mentioned in the doc, one of the options is to simplify WebRTC by making some components optional to enable it's better adoption and easier to implement on the back-end as well as on front-end.
23.
by mrmoka 9y ago
Those implementations were created to be utilised within FirefoxOS where applications are granted permissions by user when installing them. And access to several API would be strictly regulated by OS it self. In Web context this approach wo
24.
by mrmoka 9y ago
> There is a lot more to security than transport-layer encryption and authentication. You are welcome to PR. > Connection based This could be explored: starting from simple handshake, all the way to fully connection based protocol. Op
25.
by mrmoka 9y ago
If it is implemented with handshake mechanics same as WebSockets, then it would be no more harmful than WebSockets.
26.
The Need for Web UDP(github.com)
100 points by mrmoka 9y ago|127 comments
27.
TANX online tank battle game (WebGL and Node.js)(tanx.io)
5 points by mrmoka 10y ago|0 comments
28.
by mrmoka 11y ago
It's a shield, gives you extra points to handle damage.
29.
by mrmoka 11y ago
You can indeed, feel free to do so. Here is source of server side code: https://github.com/Maksims/tanx And here is client side: https://playcanvas.com/project/45093/overview/tanx And my
30.
by mrmoka 11y ago
Server went down, should be good now :)

More ›