Remix.run Logo
tadasv an hour ago

It is minimal and somewhat neat. It claims to be P2P, but it still needs to bootstrap the connection via central server. I think that always might be a limitation of P2P.

I had a similar idea but for wireguard only, where you would allow people to join a vpn through a "shared" jumpbox. To get started with wg is very simple, the problem is the same you need public IP address to scaffold everything.

Out of the two options I probably would prefer going wg route, just because it generalizes better. But this is a pretty cool demo of webrtc.

spl757 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If you are running this stuff on a cheap VPS with limited bandwidth, you will not want all of your traffic being routed as ingress and egress as that could easily eat your monthly bandwidth limit depending on the size of files and frequency.

narragansett an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, bootstrapping needs a rendezvous point -- that's true of any P2P system, including the wg version. The difference is what the rendezvous knows and costs. Here it holds no accounts, no registry, and nothing that grants access, so it's a phonebook rather than a keyring, and it's out of the data path so it's cheap to run and you can self-host it.

On generalizing: wg wins for "put these machines on one network." WebRTC wins on reach, because the connecting side can be a browser -- a phone, a borrowed laptop, a machine you don't administer -- with nothing installed. A wg jumpbox still needs a client on both ends and a public IP for the box. Different tradeoff rather than a strictly better one.