Anytime I see “P2P”, I assume a STUN server is involved because of the ubiquitous nature of NAT with IPv4. I read such claims as meaning that the tool itself does not require dedicated servers or persistent storage for its core functionality. (And there are plenty of public STUN servers to choose from.)
It's a fundamental limitation of P2P that you need NAT hole punching. If you use IPv6 it's truly peer to peer since you can generate ICE host candidates directly.
Also, you don't actually need NAT hole punching if you use fixed ports and port forwarding at the router level.
Do both the sharing and receiving users need to install the app? If not, it would probably be much easier to start using the app if at least the receiving user could view my screen from their web browser.
Apart from that, I often fall back to https://github.com/adamyordan/laplace when I need to share my screen. It works in the browser and has great image clarity. Sadly, the demo instance is down, so you need to host it yourself. Also, it can have trouble inside some enterprise network/firewall setups.
> peer-to-peer connection ... without the need for ... any server infrastructure.
- https://github.com/mistweaverco/bananas/blob/623016aea330e61...It's P2P, but saying there's no server infrastructure is objectively wrong.
Anytime I see “P2P”, I assume a STUN server is involved because of the ubiquitous nature of NAT with IPv4. I read such claims as meaning that the tool itself does not require dedicated servers or persistent storage for its core functionality. (And there are plenty of public STUN servers to choose from.)
It's a fundamental limitation of P2P that you need NAT hole punching. If you use IPv6 it's truly peer to peer since you can generate ICE host candidates directly.
Also, you don't actually need NAT hole punching if you use fixed ports and port forwarding at the router level.
Do both the sharing and receiving users need to install the app? If not, it would probably be much easier to start using the app if at least the receiving user could view my screen from their web browser.
Apart from that, I often fall back to https://github.com/adamyordan/laplace when I need to share my screen. It works in the browser and has great image clarity. Sadly, the demo instance is down, so you need to host it yourself. Also, it can have trouble inside some enterprise network/firewall setups.
> the receiving user could view my screen from their web browser
How would this be possible "without the need for an account or any server infrastructure" claimed by this project?
WebRTC and "simple" are somewhat orthogonal concepts, I think.
Simple for users is not the same as simpler for developers, WebRTC definitely is a beast.