Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

STUN and TURN isn't unnecessary complexity. They're absolutely essential due to NAT. You need something like STUN to be able to communicate peer to peer through NAT, and you need something like TURN to tunnel traffic through a server in the case where NAT hole punching is impossible.

Maaybe there's some unnecessary incidental complexity in the way the STUN and TURN protocols work? I don't know, I honestly haven't investigated the details of the protocols. But the actually problematic complexity comes from the fact that something like STUN and TURN is needed at all, and that's essential complexity which arises from the problem domain.



I could be wrong but I think GP is arguing for dropping ipv4 to avoid all the complexity that comes from still supporting it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: