3 ms·

I've tried the following in the last few weeks (and several more, but I forget the names): jitsi, cisco jabber, cisco webex, google hangouts, google meet. Jits

by wyager 7y ago

I've tried the following in the last few weeks (and several more, but I forget the names): jitsi, cisco jabber, cisco webex, google hangouts, google meet. Jitsi is definitely the best that I've tried. Jabber is OK, webex is a complete joke, the google ones are OK. The failure mode for a lot of these services seems to be crappy centralized routing infrastructure. I have way more than enough bandwidth to support like 10x bidirectional 1080p60 streams at, say, 10mbps each, but no service even comes close to that. I assume that people are working on doing this in a P2P way, but it's hard for some reason.

manigandham 7y ago
It's hard because millions of people are on mobile and/or don't have that bandwidth.
raziel2p 7y ago
Jitsi is already peer-to-peer as far as I know.
- ackbar03 7y ago
  On that point, is it actually? I've been messing around with p2p lately and everything is behind a Nat these days, it's almost impossible to do without a relay server which will probably be a dedicated relay server since most clients are going to be behind some sort of router. And before anyone says hole punching, thats pretty much useless these days since almost all NATs are symmetric Nats now, the outgoing and incoming ports won't be matched the same even if the same socket is the same one. (if anyone is having success with this I'd love to know how they are doing it)
  - wyager 7y ago
    NAT seems like it has been a disaster for the internet. It basically forces us to route things through dedicated centralized servers, actively damping investment and research into P2P technology. Some of the most useful networking things I’ve learned in the last few years have basically been ways to circumvent NAT-induced problems.
    - ackbar03 7y ago
      Yea that was pretty much how I viewed it as well. There seemed to be a lot of research on p2p research but nat made everything impractical. That being said nat was an necessity due to ip4, but given how widespread it is now I somehow doubt ip6 is really going to make p2p easier

by wyager 7y ago

manigandham 7y ago

It's hard because millions of people are on mobile and/or don't have that bandwidth.

raziel2p 7y ago

Jitsi is already peer-to-peer as far as I know.

ackbar03 7y ago
On that point, is it actually? I've been messing around with p2p lately and everything is behind a Nat these days, it's almost impossible to do without a relay server which will probably be a dedicated relay server since most clients are going to be behind some sort of router. And before anyone says hole punching, thats pretty much useless these days since almost all NATs are symmetric Nats now, the outgoing and incoming ports won't be matched the same even if the same socket is the same one. (if anyone is having success with this I'd love to know how they are doing it)
- wyager 7y ago
  NAT seems like it has been a disaster for the internet. It basically forces us to route things through dedicated centralized servers, actively damping investment and research into P2P technology. Some of the most useful networking things I’ve learned in the last few years have basically been ways to circumvent NAT-induced problems.
  - ackbar03 7y ago
    Yea that was pretty much how I viewed it as well. There seemed to be a lot of research on p2p research but nat made everything impractical. That being said nat was an necessity due to ip4, but given how widespread it is now I somehow doubt ip6 is really going to make p2p easier