On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:38:52 +0100
hiro <23hiro_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> XMPP starts with X, so it sucks, and SIP also has it's complexities if
> you want...
Dude, I have an epiphany right now ... XML, XSLT, X11, ....
> I'm sceptical about Tor's latency, I'd generally look for direct P2P
> connections for the voice stream without any third server in the
> middle.
Yes, Tor's latency is definitely a problem. I wouldn't bet on that.
Tox actually implements VoIP via direct P2P over RTP, read more on the
wiki[0].
Encrypting this RTP-stream is planned.
> Do you know of any skype-competition that correctly implements 2-way
> UDP hole-punching? SIP+STUN doesn't seem to fix the problem for me and
> other extensions to make it work better (like ICE) weren't supported
> by the implementations I tried. I don't even know what they do and
> gave up on that topic long time ago.
Yep, Tox offers a routing protocol[1] for users behind symmetric NATs.
For everything else, the DHT is claimed[2] to be able to do its job
properly (I didn't check it).
> I would still want the application to fall back to using a proxy if
> all hole-punching attempts failed. And what sadly is not obvious to
> the implementers: I would want the applications to DETECT that it
> failed, i.e. when there's no rtp packet for a second you send out some
> standard SIP event: INFO fuck-why-can't-you-say-something and then
> retry with proper rtp.
Except from the lousy port-guessing-algorithm, this should work here
already[2].
> Also don't forget ossrecord | nc, and ossplay for the other direction.
I'm not familiar with OSS.
Cheers
FRIGN
[0]:
http://wiki.tox.im/Audio_and_video
[1]:
http://wiki.tox.im/Routing_Protocols
[2]:
http://wiki.tox.im/Symmetric_NAT_Transversal
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Mon Mar 24 2014 - 12:20:49 CET