WebRTC clients take that STUN/TURN response and send to peers through out-of-band, through e.g. a lobby server chat mechanism, to set up the connection. This allows NAT table entries to be created as if they are outbound connection at both ends.
You can't make P2P connection with STUN/TURN alone. STUN/TURN is just a tool required for WebRTC.
I don't know you mean by this, but I think you're confused. I have implemented STUN, so I know how it works. AFAIK, TURN doesn't reveal an address/port any different from that revealed by STUN, and cannot, because its discovery feature is STUN. (Also, a typical home user has only one internet-facing address, not a dynamic one plus another one.)
Rather, TURN provides a STUN address/port discovery service and a data relay service. The relay is for cases where two peers wishing to connect are both behind difficult NAT, meaning there is no quick and reliable way for them to directly connect even when they have their STUN results. So instead of connecting directly, they communicate through the relay.
If you can make all the STUN servers fail from the perspective of the clients, you could hypothetically force them to use TURN servers that are more centralized and easier to spy on. STUN negotiates pipes n:n. TURN is closer to n:1.
Webrtc traffic is encrypted as it travels through the TURN servers, isn't it? Sure, you get some which-ip-contacted-which-using-what-service metadata, but any active middleman able to mess with STUN traffic already has that.
It could just be that someone's fucked up a setting somewhere. I mean, the reason WebRTC has loads of options for 'interactive connectivity establishment' is because it's common to see users behind NAT, users whose NAT cant be traversed with STUN, IPv6 being broken, UDP getting blocked, TCP ports other than port 443 getting blocked, etc etc.
If a country's ISPs use CGNAT to avoid giving users precious IPv4 addresses, and world events made the ISPs turn the security settings up to 11, STUN just stops working.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relays_around_...
STUN has mitigations now against being weaponized but it’s still a shit protocol. The fact that neither STUN nor TURN contain any way whatsoever to accomplish any kind of rendezvous without yet another signaling path boggles my mind given how easy it would have been.
Interesting. Can you expound on this a bit? How does ZeroTier do it?
Other than relaying and STUN-like IP info reflection, they're dumb and do very little. They can't see your traffic or other information or even what virtual networks you're on.
Once both sides learn their external info, they communicate via the root to arrange P2P rendezvous. If both have IPv6 they use that, but still do a hole punch due to stateful firewalls. But with V6 it works almost 100% of the time. If one or both have V4, they do more cumbersome V4 hole punch maneuvers.
Our next-gen product, which is still in pre-release and has been shown only to some enterprise customers, is called ZeroTier Quantum. It's called that cause it's built on PQC (pqNoise to be exact) but it's also a full-scale reengineering of the whole system. But it still uses very similar techniques. Everything is in-band. No STUN, TURN, or even DNS dependencies.
Who signed up for what?
These dudes and dudettes playing video games
> what?
Military service
FWIW I don't agree with the comment chain's source, I read "regular people" as "civilians" and don't think there was any nasty connotation meant.
Be careful, HN is a crazy china and leftie and MENA glaze site now.