Re:Skype's Principal Architect explains why peer-to-peer was...
by lnanek2 on Monday June 24, 2013 @02:18AM
(#5931318)
I have a friend who is really into WebRTC, and help him with debugging sometimes. Honestly, I've never found a network I use often that it works on. Doesn't work on my AT&T LTE except for presence. Doesn't work at all on my work internet. Video doesn't work on my work guest internet outside our firewall. Doesn't work from my hotel internet. I haven't tried at home, but I'm only home a couple weekends a month, so that's useless anyway.
WebRTC depends on things non-home internet filters out or prevents, so it is useless. The way to get around that? Use central servers and make your traffic look like HTTP. Heck, even STUN protocols admit there are cases where it won't work, but WebRTC fans seem to think they'll always be able to get a P2P connection. The technology is just naive as far as I'm concerned. Something that only works on home internet and a few open networks is worthless.
Re:Skype's Principal Architect explains why peer-to-peer was...
by rdl on Monday June 24, 2013 @05:55AM
(#5931947)
Sure, but as long as there's federation or something like it, you get to pick your choice of a server (including running your own). That's good enough for me.
WebRTC depends on things non-home internet filters out or prevents, so it is useless. The way to get around that? Use central servers and make your traffic look like HTTP. Heck, even STUN protocols admit there are cases where it won't work, but WebRTC fans seem to think they'll always be able to get a P2P connection. The technology is just naive as far as I'm concerned. Something that only works on home internet and a few open networks is worthless.