I also appreciate that most of the data is available right there on the watch (although sometime buried). And I even used the torch a couple of times!
311 karma · joined September 19, 2011
I also appreciate that most of the data is available right there on the watch (although sometime buried). And I even used the torch a couple of times!
The biggest hurdles for me were - should I use separate profiles and how to get apps. Initially, I started with a separate profile for google stuff (like play store/services and apps downloaded from there, like Viber), but eventually I moved everything to the owner profile (and took a bit of a privacy and battery hit in the matter of convenience). Still, being able to control many app permissions, gives me a good state of mind that apps are not doing more then I expect.
Just looked at what android 17 brings to the table and I'm mildly excited - especially improving performance and adding more permissions (like ACCESS_LOCAL_NETWORK)
I've been drawing a lot of inspiration from Iroh, while working on my own https://github.com/connet-dev/connet. While peers in connet communicate peer to peer, I have a long way to cover peer discovery and transparent connection migration.
"Tailscale at the application layer, instead of the network layer" (as sibling comment describes it) is a great way of thinking about it. In my mind, with the right apps, Iroh (and connet) could really democratize secure self-hosting.
A few things that worth mentioning for connet's current state - you can technically bind to any local IP, not just loopback (or listen to them all). You also have the option of directly running a TLS/HTTPS destination (for mutual TLS directly to the service) or source (e.g. for mutual authentication between your local listener and the outside world). Another option is to build your own client and define how you want to source traffic - maybe its part of your app and there are no sockets or anything - you just connect and start talking.
Native iOS/Android clients, if possible, will probably be the next things I'll work on. At minimum they should enable you to run a "source" (e.g. a consumer of an exposed service), but ideally it will be the whole deal.
The reason connet exists is that nothing (at the time I started, including netbird, tailscale/headscale, frp, rathole, etc) gave the same easy to understand, FOSS, self-hosted, direct peer-to-peer way of remote access to your resources. I believe it does accomplish this and it is self-hosted. And while a cloud deployment at https://connet.dev exists, it is nothing more then repackaging the FOSS project with user/token management.
Just released v0.12.0 which has a lot of package cleanup and some important bugfixes. Next, is making the relay infrastructure much more lighter, requiring less synchronization.
Personally, I'm using the hosted version[0] (which is just a repackage of the open source version with dynamic with tokens) to expose my NAS and syncthing web UIs to manage them while I'm away. Sometimes even through my phone (with termux)
Another option is to try to rewrite clients in each of the language, but most fare poorly on QUIC support - in Java for example, I'm not aware of one that is advertised as production ready (looking at kwik with their fork of TLS).
Just finished a major (v0.10) revamp of the API (you can use connet as part of an application, not through the CLI) which also fixed a few issues I've been seeing before.
Now, I'm gearing to update the relay protocols - currently relays are closed off by the control server (e.g. you ask it to provision you a relay resource) which requires the relay to communicate with the control server itself. In the new version, the relays will be operating on their own (there might be a shared secret with the control server, in case you want a closed off relay) and peers will reserve directly with the desired relays. Maybe in future, the relays might form clusters on their own to take advantage of better relay-to-relay network and peers will reserve only at the relay closest to them.
Another stream of work, is giving peers identities. Right now the server will give them an internal identity to better support reconnects, but these are not stable (e.g. they don't survive client restarts). In future, the peer will advertise their identity and then other peers may choose what peers to allow comms with and what to ignore, pushing more decisions into peers themself.
Yet another change I'm thinking about is exposing raw endpoints to enable users of the system to implements other protocols - I'm not quite sure if this is really needed (the destination/source, e.g. server/client) covers a lot of ground by itself, but it would be great if these are not the only options.
Many options how to continue, but if I'm out of ideas, there is always a Rust rewrite to throw in /s
I use nix via flakes on my own machines (via NixOS), in my projects (with direnv), on my infrastructure/servers (NixOS deploying with colmena) and at work (nix-darwin and projects). So far the upgrade have gone painlessly, the only change I needed to make is how git is configured in home manager. I continue to be amazed how well NixOS works.
Edit: The only place I still struggle in adopting nix is on my phone. Last time I tried nix-on-droid it didn't even run, but I plan to try that again. Still new to Android (and GrapheneOS)
The one thing I'm missing is "incognito" profiles - e.g. spawn a temporary profile (without any identity attached) easily when I'm researching/navigating unusual sites and kill it once I'm done. Having multiple of these would be a great improvement over normal incognito windows (which share identities).
In any case, I'm optimistic that QUIC has a bright future. I don't expect it to replace TCP, but give us another tool we can use when it is called for.
Seems that the relays in iroh play the role of STUN and TURN (maybe even implement these)?
I'd have to read more about DNS discovery (and dht), very interesting.
* 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.
In any case, zrok.io is cool, it is certainly more mature and feature rich project.
What I was describing above is a specific way to route traffic - by default if direct connection between clients can be made (e.g. peer-to-peer), connet uses that. However, in cases where this is not possible, connet can use relays to send traffic between peers. In this scenario, you can in addition encrypt traffic end-to-end, so if you are using a public/untrusted relays, the relay itself cannot inspect/see traffic between peers.
Of course, you can also configure peers to never use relays and always communicate directly. A relay (or a third-party) is only used when both peers allow it and no direct route can be used.
In any case, homegrown solutions are great, they offer the most flexibility, but also require the biggest time investment (and knowledge of course).
One new feature I haven't highlighted yet, is that you can, in addition, encrypt traffic as it goes through relays (both via tls or noise-inspired protocol, dhxcp). This enhances privacy, even when you are using public (e.g. not owned by you relays), covering a case like https://connet.dev nicely.
This is a hosted version of connet[1]. In addition, it allows users to expose their endpoints directly on the internet (optional and still in progress)