You specifically mention:
reply"Server dependence: You need to host or use two different servers (Signaling + STUN/TURN). Can use Google’s STUN, but combining signaling and STUN into one server would be nice."
I'm curious about using Tailscale with this. I don't think you can just do Tailscale Funnel? But maybe you could? Maybe Tailscale Share, and the client has to also be on Tailscale?
I feel like they would go really well together...
Thoughts?
So, having talked to people in the WebRTC community about this, you should be able to use WebRTC in a local network without having to connect to STUN/TURN
replySTUN/TURN matters because if you are connecting to a remote peer, you have no idea how to reach them. STUN/TURN gives you a "map" to get to the remote peer.
If you are on a VPN that doesn't matter very much (see: Hamachi)
Yeah if you know the ip of your peer you don't need STUN/TURN from what I remember.
replyIf it's ipv6, I think that's true. If it's ipv4, then you still have problems. They could be behind NAT or worse, CGNAT.
replyHave you looked at Trystero https://oxism.com/trystero to establish the WebRTC connection? I used it on a small PoC last week and it worked well. Thanks to latching on to various decentralized services (Nostr etc) you don’t need your own TURN/STUN server etc.
replyI'm pretty sure this still uses STUN/TURN [0], it just uses Nostr and friends as a signaling server. Again, the main stumbling block of WebRTC is the signaling server stuff. STUN/TURN is honestly pretty trivial
reply[0] https://github.com/dmotz/trystero/blob/65fa48e33c82a7d0fa627...