[Galene] Re: Federated servers or multiple turns?

[Han So <hansolo2218@gmail.com>]

This is really to improve security and anonymity
- that way person 1 can log into Galen’s server 1 and be in the same group as person 2 who logged into Galene server 2. 


Multiple turn servers as well.  Currently they both access the same turn so both individuals would see the same ip addresses they are connected to.  Having multiple turns, one for each side would reduce aggregation.  Coturn has an alternate server setting for round robin, but it needs the client to be able to process a 300 error then reroute that client to the alternate server.   Perhaps this wouldn’t matter if we had multiple federated servers that contain the same group but each server would have a different turn.

Hans

> On Nov 24, 2022, at 2:59 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Had anyone worked on federating multiple Galene servers
> 
> The original plan was to allow server federation, and to allow
> distributing a single group on multiple servers.  It turned out, however,
> that Galene requires fewer server ressources than initially expected, so
> the need for such fine-grained load-balancing didn't materalise.
> 
> For now, you can distribute load by putting different Galene groups on
> different servers.  You may either redirect clients to the right server at
> the HTTP level (see the "redirect" directive in the configuration file),
> or you could redirect just the websocket connection (so the URL visible in
> the browser is the one of the original server, not the one that that the
> user has been redirected to).
> 
>> having multiple turn servers?
> 
> You could have multiple TURN servers, sure.  Could you please explain why
> you'd want that?
> 
> -- Juliusz