Justin Karneges wrote: > On Monday 28 August 2006 14:36, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Ravi wrote: >>> I have an idea of what I am up against. As well as little surprised that >>> nobody tried P2P for chat. I will reconsider my options. >> Nobody in the Jabber community has, because our technology has worked >> just fine so far. But ICQ and Skype (mostly) take the p2p approach. > > As I understand it, ICQ primarily sends messages over the server, now that it > uses the OSCAR protocol (just like AIM).
Yes, I meant in the old days. > P2P could allow for more optimized routing, but there are far too many > firewalls to even consider it. AIM and MSN have proven that server-based > message routing isn't a problem, even if you have millions of users. And if > you don't have millions of users, then it also isn't a problem. This is the > nice thing about XMPP decentralization; it is not jabber.org's job to host > the whole planet. > > Additionally, a design goal of XMPP is to allow for easy client development, > and having the server do a lot of the work sure is easier than P2P. You can > see evidence of this by comparing the number of clients that support plain IM > vs the number that support any kind of P2P extension (e.g. File transfer or > VoIP). Well said. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
