5 ms·

"Based on WebRTC which allows decentralized communication between browsers. Your video conference is not streamed to Hubl.in in any way." How is it doing this?

"Based on WebRTC which allows decentralized communication between browsers. Your video conference is not streamed to Hubl.in in any way." How is it doing this? Is each peer sending video to all the other peers? (I.e., with 3 users, each user has two outgoing and two incoming streams?)

benevol 11y ago
> How is it doing this? Good question. Until now, with WebRTC, you always needed a STUN, TURN and signaling server [0]. And I would be very surprised if they somehow managed to create a whole new architecture. It certainly seems like these servers are run centrally by Hublin. [0] http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure/ http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure...
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  I think they're saying the content of the video stream isn't sent to them.
  - benevol 11y ago
    In a WebRTC architecture, the media (video call stream) gets sent over a TURN server. I don't see where they say that you will set up your own TURN server.
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      My understanding is that STUN only coordinates connections between peers. A TURN server is required if that fails. So presumably they don't have a TURN server and only support clients that can peer with each other.
    - lallysingh 11y ago
      TURN's only needed if both sides have particularly restrictive NATs. There are also some public TURN servers. It's fairly harmless, as the media's all encrypted.
brazzledazzle 11y ago
I'm curious as well. My understanding is that WebRTC and group chat is a pain when done strictly p2p. I could see perhaps sending a small compressed version of the stream and increasing that when requested (like clicking on someone's feed and making it larger) but even in that scenario it seems like bandwidth could become a problem quickly. Maybe it elects a leader with the most bandwidth and they act as a relay or mux the streams?

benevol 11y ago

> How is it doing this? Good question. Until now, with WebRTC, you always needed a STUN, TURN and signaling server [0]. And I would be very surprised if they somehow managed to create a whole new architecture. It certainly seems like these servers are run centrally by Hublin. [0] http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure/ http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure...

brazzledazzle 11y ago
I think they're saying the content of the video stream isn't sent to them.
- benevol 11y ago
  In a WebRTC architecture, the media (video call stream) gets sent over a TURN server. I don't see where they say that you will set up your own TURN server.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    My understanding is that STUN only coordinates connections between peers. A TURN server is required if that fails. So presumably they don't have a TURN server and only support clients that can peer with each other.
  - lallysingh 11y ago
    TURN's only needed if both sides have particularly restrictive NATs. There are also some public TURN servers. It's fairly harmless, as the media's all encrypted.

brazzledazzle 11y ago

I'm curious as well. My understanding is that WebRTC and group chat is a pain when done strictly p2p. I could see perhaps sending a small compressed version of the stream and increasing that when requested (like clicking on someone's feed and making it larger) but even in that scenario it seems like bandwidth could become a problem quickly. Maybe it elects a leader with the most bandwidth and they act as a relay or mux the streams?