[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #5578 [Flashproxy]: Investigate WebRTC for flash proxy NAT punching
#5578: Investigate WebRTC for flash proxy NAT punching
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: dcf | Owner: dcf
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: Flashproxy | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Comment(by dcf):
We will probably have to add some metadata to client registrations to
indicate what kind of connections the client supports. Registrations
currently look like this:
{{{
client=1.2.3.4:9000
}}}
We can augment them so:
{{{
client=1.2.3.4:9000&transports=websocket,webrtc
}}}
Maybe that doesn't make sense, as `webrtc` needs its own port number, or
something. Perhaps something like
{{{
client-1.2.3.4:9000&client-webrtc=1.2.3.4:10000
}}}
Where `client` is implictly `client-websocket`.
Flash proxies would also advise the facilitator of the types of connection
they can serve. So a Chrome browser arrives supporting `websocket` and
`webrtc`, and the facilitator is free to give it a client that supports
either of those two.
Having a `raw` transport separate from `websocket` would also be nice for
#6284+#7721 (plain sockets in Chrome addons, browser addon) and #7944
(standalone flash proxy). When we're not limited by a browser, then we
shouldn't have to pay the WebSocket overhead.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5578#comment:2>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs