On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:38:52 +0100 hiro <23h...@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 <d...@frign.de>
