Allow NetcodeServer to manage connections from multiple sockets #150
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ets to netcode transports
…ncryption internally
UkoeHB
force-pushed
the
agnostic3
branch
2 times, most recently
from
636be39 to
e0f0862
Compare
|
Closing this as implemented in renet2. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Builds off #149 to allow
NetcodeServerTransportto internally manage multipleTransportSockets. This is done by 'domain-separating' the client address space between each socket with a 'socket id'. It is important that sockets don't have overlapping address spaces so thenetcodeprotocol can properly enforce connection invariants.With this PR, you can have a
UdpSocketandWebTransportsocket providing packets to the sameNetcodeServer, which makes it safe for clients to switch sockets mid-game! If you don't shareNetcodeServerthen it is not safe to allow socket switching (without some hairy and hard-to-validate engineering) because it is not possible/easy to enforce that a client only has one connection to the server.At this point I don't have high hopes for these PRs to be merged, but I am presenting them nevertheless.