←back to thread

238 points gasull | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
Ingon ◴[] No.44381789[source]
I work on connet [1] and from what I've seen iroh seem pretty cool. A few random thoughts I had while watching the presentations/reading the docs:

* the relays serve both for discovery and relay. In connet these are separate responsibilities, e.g. it has control server for discovery and a relay server for relaying connections.

* it seems that the connections to the relays in iroh are TCP (at least what was said in one of the videos), while connet uses QUIC in all cases. This probably makes iroh more resilient, but multiplexing on top of TCP might suffer from head of line blocking.

* it is pretty cool that iroh can seamlessly upgrade from relay to direct connection, connet doesn't do that on a connection level. It will however use direct in the subsequent virtual connections.

* using ALPNs for protocol selection is pretty cool, connet only offers "virtual connections" protocol, where one of the peers is "server" and the other is a "client".

* since there is a separate discovery server (with auth), in connet the endpoints are named separately with logical names, they don't represent peers necessarily. Because of this, you can have multiple peers with "server" role and "client" roles.

Anyhow, thanks for posting this, iroh looks great and I will draw some inspiration from it for sure.

[1] https://github.com/connet-dev/connet

replies(2): >>44383651 #>>44386110 #
1. nerdsniper ◴[] No.44383651[source]
> * the relays serve both for discovery and relay. In connet these are separate responsibilities, e.g. it has control server for discovery and a relay server for relaying connections.

What are the relative advantages/disadvantages of these two strategies?