> > Why are you not doing the audio streams p2p? That would make far more sense > > IMO. > > That's and old story heavy discussed on the speex mailing list. > P2P is fine for two enteties, but it doesn't work with more then two. > It doesn't work because you to doing so means that every client have to > send the stream to every client. Since we want to send video and audio, > this is not really a solution. We have perhaps 10 percent of the > bandwith for audio.
Ok thats fine but in the majority of cases for normal use each individual conversation will only have two participants, we shouldnt be enforcing a server based solution on those users when it isnt necessary. There is also the matter of the hosting of these central combination servers, since they will be quite bandwidth hungry they are not likely to be offered for free meaning people would have to pay a subscription to be able to use them, now why force this on people where it is not needed and it could be done p2p for free?, also what happens when the server is full? no one will be able to audio or video conference with each other at all, the server also becomes a major point of failure and a possible target for a DDoS attack. Also remember with broadband connections (and silence detection) there will be plenty of bandwidth available for small group conferences, with my broadband connection which only has 128kbps upstream assuming an 8kbps audio stream I will be able to p2p group conference with over 12 people (using up 96kbps), now that is more than plenty for normal people. This argument so far seems to be mainly about people making things complicated simply for the sake of doing it and not thinking about the end users, if peoples use of existing systems is anything to go by 90% of audio/video conversations will only be between two people (for real normal users). Richard _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
