But still, what is the way of doing stream in both directions? Do you mean opening multi-part form data for uploading and transfer encoding chunked for download? But that would be 2 tcp connection for 1 tcp tunnel. And I believe there's no other way to do it without the overhead of HTTP request/response headers.
This functionality is exposed by lots of HTTP libraries, e.g. the Go, node.js or C# HTTP libraries will allow to simply read or write to a request/response body stream just like to can write to a socket. As a proxy - just copy the data from one stream to the other.
What are are probably thinking is that the browser environment does currently not allow to use HTTP for arbitrary streaming. Instead they defined some fixed use cases and encodings for these use cases. If you use SSE encoding you can't send bytes without overhead anymore and can only do streaming in one direction. But: You will get a nicer browser API for retrieving the data. Using HTTP bodies for arbitrary streaming will be allowed in future revisions of the fetch API (which e.g. give you a ReadableStream).
Other HTTP libraries also do not allow for streaming but expect the body in either direction to be a fixed length thing. This will allow to represent the body e.g. as a "string" or "byte[]" instead of a Stream from which the application has to read. Thereby the API gets simpler, but not all possible use cases are enabled.
Agreed it's not quite as straightforward as the parent poster suggests. I can see issues with this approach for realtime/streaming applications but for applications relying on a similar request/response flow of traffic it would do the job.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_persistent_connection
(see: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-HTTP-pr...)
> Once upon a time at evening I have decided to properly brake the famous browsers communication problem and as a result you have landed in here. I have created implementation of BNC networks model with simple TCP/IP layer, that as transport packet it will use browser's cookie object.
I would use "link conditioner" or a similar tool, simulate packet loss and see how this compares to the other software.
Even for applications designed to tunnel traffic from the outset (OpenVPN), TCP over TCP is a mess and it's kind of a non-starter for anything that's not a toy (unless you have no other choice, like with certain mobile carriers where path MTU and CGN cause issues).
Seems like a curse targeting game-changing projects written in Scala.
If you are trying to solve the problem of NAT traversal and such, I suggest you rather attempt to do this:
vpnazure kinda does this, but has the overhead of softether vpn service on top of it... I would rather go with punching myself an ssh port.
Why would you rather "punch yourself and ssh port"? Do you mean that your main problem with vpnazure and the like is the need of an agent/client software installed? I am not sure I understood your concern, but I would be very interested in hearing more about it. Feel free to email me to the address on my profile if you prefer, although a reply here works for me.
IMHO the best way to make it transparent for any application is to have a virtual interface. It offers an expected environment for any new or legacy app (instead of proxying stuff explicitly).
Thanks!
