| |||||||||||||
Schaller: The long journey towards good free video conferencingSchaller: The long journey towards good free video conferencingPosted Oct 15, 2012 15:28 UTC (Mon) by Tester (subscriber, #40675)In reply to: Schaller: The long journey towards good free video conferencing by peter_lemenkov Parent article: Schaller: The long journey towards good free video conferencing
Actually, the NAT work-arounds work in XMPP, because everyone is using ICE. While in SIP, well, you always go through a server, so it doesn't really work for anything else than simple voice.
(Log in to post comments)
Schaller: The long journey towards good free video conferencing Posted Oct 15, 2012 15:39 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
SIP uses separate connections for signaling and data. Signaling connection can be a straightforward client-to-server TCP/UDP connection.
Data connection is a completely different story, though.
Schaller: The long journey towards good free video conferencing Posted Oct 15, 2012 17:22 UTC (Mon) by Tester (subscriber, #40675) [Link]
Sure SIP uses a separate connection for data and signalling. The signalling goes through the server and in theory, the media (the data) can be direct P2P, but in practice, in every SIP deployment, the SIP server munches the SDP to tell both sides to send their media through the server, because SIP was never designed to take NATs into account. Sure, ICE was designed for that, and although it's universally deployed with XMPP (because Google Talk requires it), also no one uses it with SIP.
And I should mention, the XMPP signalling is almost exactly the same as SIP, except better specified with less useless flexibility, meaning you get actual compatibility.
|
|||||||||||||