3 ms·
Work is in progress to make webrtc implementations work over ipv6 but it's not ready yet. Chrome 34 will implement it behind a feature flag (googIPv6:true) [1],
by simon_vetter 13y ago
Work is in progress to make webrtc implementations work over ipv6 but it's not ready yet.
Chrome 34 will implement it behind a feature flag (googIPv6:true) [1], and hopefully Firefox will follow suit.
When they do, most pain points caused by NATs will go away, and that's not webrtc specific.
While you'll always encounter some (intentionally?) broken network which only allows 80/tcp and 443/tcp from time to time, there's not much you can do about it, and webrtc can't do much about it.
[1] http://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1406 http://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1406
- AshleysBrain 13y agoThanks for the heads up, this does look like it will help a lot! (Assuming IPv6 reaches most people eventually)
- jmspring 13y ago> When they do, most pain points caused by NATs will go away, and that's not webrtc specific. This is a naive statement since it assumes IPv6 support amongst the clients. At least here in the US, such support is fairly minuscule.
- ay 13y agoIn the US, today, one in 15 clients accessing google.com / yahoo.com / facebook.com is doing it from an IPv6 address. And it's more than double compared to a year ago [1]. While indeed this still qualifies as "relatively small", I think it grew out of the "miniscule" :-) [1] http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/cible.php?country=US http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/cible.php?country=US
- jmspring 13y agoI think mobile operators are going to drive the near term biggest uptick in ipv6 adoption. My local ISP (small, independent) has no current IPV6 plans, which is actually a little bit annoying.