I try to initialize 2 DTLS sessions with 2 different peers. The first otCoapSecureConnect returns OT_ERROR_NONE, the second one returns OT_ERROR_INVALID_STATE. Does OpenThread allow multiple CoAP secure connections ?
The current CoAP Secure APIs in OpenThread only supports a single active session.
Related
I'm wondering if it is possible to establish a WebRTC connection between two clients that have different turn servers configured. Does the specification state if the configuration has to be identical?
What happens when they both specify different servers? Will they choose random or is the connection impossible?
The configurations don't have to be identical. If both Peers require a relay connection the TURN servers will communicate directly to each other (via their allocation ports)
If you do end up using the same TURN server make sure you handle hairpinning properly!
I am building this video teaching site and did some research and got a good understanding but except for this thing. So when a user want's to connect to another user, P2P, I need signaling server to get their public IP to get them connected. Now STUN is doing that job and TURN will relay the media if the peers cannot connect. Now if I write signaling server with WebSocket to communicate the SDP messages and have ICE working, do I need coTURN installed? What will be the job of the job of them particularly?
Where exactly I am confused is the work of my simply written WebSocket Signaling server (from what I saw in different tutorials) and the work of the coTURN server I'll install. And how to connect them with the media server I'll install.
A second question, is there a way to use P2P when there is only two/three participants and get the media servers involved is there is more than that so that I don't use up the participant's bandwidth too much?
The signaling server is required to exchange messages between peers (SDP packets) until they have established a P2P connection.
A STUN server is there to help a peer discover information about its public IP and to open up firewall ports. The main problem this is solving is that a lot of devices are behind NAT routers within small private networks; NAT basically allows outgoing requests and their response, but blocks any other "unsolicited" incoming requests. You therefore have a Catch-22 scenario when both peers are behind a NAT router and could make an outgoing request, but have nowhere to send it to since the opposite peer doesn't expose anything to make a request to. STUN servers act as a temporary middleman to make requests to, which opens a port on the NAT device to allow the response to come back, which means there's now a known open port the other peer can use. It's a form of hole-punching.
A TURN server is a relay in a publicly accessible location, in case a P2P connection is impossible. There are still cases where hole-punching is unsuccessful, e.g. due to more restrictive firewalls. In those cases the two peers simply cannot talk 1-on-1 directly, and all their traffic is relayed through a TURN server. That's a 3rd party server that both peers can connect to unrestrictedly and that simply forwards data from one peer to the other. One popular implementation of a TURN server is coturn.
Yes, basically all those functions could be fulfilled by a single server, but they’re deliberately separated. The WebRTC specification has absolutely nothing to say about signaling servers, since the signaling mechanism is very unique to each application and could take many different forms. TURN is very bandwidth intensive and must usually be delegated to a larger server farm if you’re hoping to scale at all, so is impractical to mix in with any of the other two functions. So you end up with three separate components.
Regarding multi-peer connections: yes, you can set up a P2P group chat just fine. However, each peer will need to be connected to every other peer, so the number of connections and bandwidth per peer increases with each new peer. That’s probably going to work okay for 3 or 4 peers, but beyond that you may start to run into bandwidth and CPU limits of individual peers, especially if you’re doing decent quality video streaming.
Is kafka suitable for Internet-use?
More precisely, what I want is to expose kafka topics as "public interface", then external consumers (or producers) can connect to it. Is it possible?
I hear there are problems if I want to use the cluster in both internal and external networks, because it is then hard to configure advertised.host.name. Is that true?
And do I have to expose zookeeper as well? I think the new consumer/producer api no longer need that.
Kafka's wire protocol is TCP-based and works fine over the public internet. In the latest versions of Kafka you can configure multiple interfaces for both internal and external traffic. Examples of Kafka over the internet in production include several Kafka-as-a-Service offerings from Heroku, IBM MessageHub, and Confluent Cloud.
You do not need to expose zookeeper if the Kafka clients use the new consumer API.
You may also choose to expose a REST Proxy such as the open source Confluent REST Proxy as a more client firewall friendly interface since it runs over HTTP(S) and will not be blocked by most corporate or personal firewalls.
I would personally not expose the Kafka server directly to clients via TCP for these reasons, only to name a few:
If a bad client opens too many connections this may affect the stability of the Kafka platform and may affects other clients too
Too many open files on the Kafka server, HW/SW settings and OS tuning is needed to limit uncontrolled clients
If you need to add a Kafka server to increase scalability, you may need to go through a lot of low level configuration (firewall, IPs visibility, certificates, etc.) on both client and server side. Other product address these problems using gateways or proxies: Coherence uses extend proxy clients, tibco EMS uses routed destinations, other SW (many JMS servers) use Store&Forward mechanisms, etc.
Maintenance of the Kafka nodes, in case of clients attached to the Kafka servers, will have to consider also the needs of clients and the SLA (service level aggreement) that have been defined with the client (ex. 24*7*365)
If you use Kafka also as a back end service, a multi layered architecture should be taken into consideration: FE gateways and BE services, etc.
Other considerations require to understand what exacly you consider to be an external (over the internet) consumer/producer in your system. Is it a component of your system that needs to access the Kafka servers? Are they internal or external to your organization, etc.
...
Naturally all these considerations can be correctly addressed also using a TCP direct connection to the Kafka servers, but I would personally use a different solution.
HTTP proxies
Or at least I would use a dedicated FE Kafka server (or couple of servers for HA) dedicated for each client that forward the messages to the main Kafka group of servers
It is possible to expose Kafka over the internet (in fact, that's how managed Kafka providers such as Aiven and Instaclustr make their money) but you have to ensure that it is adequately secured. At minimum:
ZooKeeper nodes should reside in a private subnet and not be routable from outside. ZK's security is inadequate and, at any rate, it is no longer required to bootstrap Kafka clients with ZK address(es).
Limit access to the brokers at the network level. If all your clients connect from a trusted network, then set appropriate firewall rules. If in AWS, use VPC peering or Direct Connect if you are connecting cloud-to-cloud or cloud-to-ground. If most of your clients are on a trusted network but a relative minority are not, force the latter to go via a VPN tunnel. Finally, if you want to allow connectivity from arbitrary locations, you'll just have to allow * on port 9092 (or whichever port you configure the brokers to listen on); just make sure that the other ports are closed.
Enable TLS (SSL) for client-broker connections. This is easily configured with a self-signed CA. Depending on how you expose your listeners, you may need to disable SSL hostname verification on the client. (The certificate chain of trust breaks if the advertised host names don't match the certificate's common name.) The clients will need the CA certificate installed. (Same CA that signed the brokers' certs.)
Optionally, you may enable mutual TLS authentication; however, this is logistically more taxing, as it requires each client to have its own private key that is signed by a CA trusted by the broker.
Use SASL to authenticate the client to the broker and create individual users for each application and each person that is expected to access the cluster.
Issue minimally-sufficient cluster- and topic-level access privileges in the ACLs for each user, following the Principle of Least Privilege (PoLP).
One other thing to bear in mind: Not all tooling supports SASL/SSL connectivity and some tools actually require a connection to ZooKeeper nodes (which will not be reachable in the above setup). Make sure any tooling you rely on uses the 'new' style of connectivity directly to the Kafka brokers and does not require a Zookeeper connection.
Beyond configuring client TLS, brokers have to have public IPs which we try to avoid. Normally for other services we hide everything behind load balancers. Would this be possible with kafka?
I'm not sure the Confluent REST proxy hosted on a public server is a real option when you need the high performance batching of the java producer client.
I'm trying to achieve peer to peer video conference using google stun server.
I can connect anyone by stun server randomly.Because stun gives multiple and random addresses and connect with it.
But is there any way to connect specific peer by stun server for a login based system or room based system?
I want to achive something like - https://apprtc.appspot.com/
You need to design your signalling method (this is up to the application developer), which is independent of STUN.
WebRTC does not specify the mechanism for signalling. Signalling is the method whereby users discover each other and establish that a call (media streams between two peers) is going to take place.
The 'discovery' process could involve a registration-based system (eg using SIP proxy) or room based where two users have access to a 'room' (by knowing the credentials or some means of authentication). Once two peers have found each other, their browsers then need to share and negotiate network topology and media capabilities to ensure that the streams can reach the intended destination and can be encoded/decoded properly.
Is the signaling server used only the first time to establish a connection between 2 peers or is it also used to send and receive data-streams between the peers?
According to the w3c proposal:
An RTCPeerConnection allows two users to communicate directly, browser to browser. Communications are coordinated via a signaling channel which is provided by unspecified means, but generally by a script in the page via the server, e.g. using XMLHttpRequest.
So the Server is only used for signalig not for data transmission. But signaling is not limited to establishing the first connection. The signaling channel is also used for transmitting error messages, metadata such as codecs, codec settings, networkdata and keys for secure transmission.
This depends on the network configuration.
If at least one of the peers is not behind a NAT firewall, the peer that is directly on the internet acts as server, and the signalling server is no longer used after the connection is established.
If both peers are behind a NAT appliance, under certain circumstances it might be possible to negociate a client server connection between the peers, and the data is again sent directly between the two peers.
If both peers are behind a NAT firewall that is locked down, all the traffic between the peers passes through the signalling server.
Notice also that in the first two cases, a STUN server is used to establish the connection. If the full data is relayed through the server, a TURN server is used.
Look at a good explanation in the article an video on html5rocks. They claim only about 14% of all connexions need TURN, which seems a really low number to me (This corresponds to only 37% of all clients are behind a locked down NAT router).