Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Does NAT traversal for snow include removing the need for p2p workarounds on ipv4? #9

Open
timcoote opened this issue Jul 10, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@timcoote
Copy link

Can snow be used as a replacement for stun/ice? If so, there's a single abstraction onto both ipv4 and ipv6 for many p2p approaches. This would be a huge win in IoT (eg controlling cameras in a home from a phone outside a home). stun/ice is particularly slow across multiple nat hops.

@zrm
Copy link
Owner

zrm commented Jul 13, 2015

Snow uses a DHT like a STUN server, so yes.

Can you say more about the specific network configuration where you find STUN/ICE to be slow? Do you know the specific cause of it? Maybe we can avoid making a similar mistake.

@timcoote
Copy link
Author

Configurations vary quite a lot. My reference text is this: http://bit.ly/1eW7VtL

which quotes up to 30 second set up times. Although it's looking at SIP set up, the same issues apply for things like trying to control a camera remotely.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants