Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#131

Post by drivebyacct2 »

comex wrote: post #20
dbaupp wrote: post #12

I feel like DataChannels are the best part of the WebRTC standard (or would be, if they were usable): a true p2p connection allowing transfer of arbitrary data without plugins or anything. This gives multiplayer games, file transfers, realtime chat and collaborative editors (let your imagination run wild...) and the only thing a server is required for is establishing the connection (and saving state). This functional…

Unfortunately, if this page is accurate, DataChannels don't really work yet: http://www.webrtc.org/chrome#TOC-Data-Channels- A shame, because I have a use in mind for them. :)

They recently appeared behind an about:flags flag. :)

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#132

Post by drivebyacct2 »

jonknee wrote: post #21
dbaupp wrote: post #12

I feel like DataChannels are the best part of the WebRTC standard (or would be, if they were usable): a true p2p connection allowing transfer of arbitrary data without plugins or anything. This gives multiplayer games, file transfers, realtime chat and collaborative editors (let your imagination run wild...) and the only thing a server is required for is establishing the connection (and saving state). This functional…

Hopefully DataConnections will also be used for video an audio so that encrypted connections can be used.

They already are. But sure, you could do that if you wanted.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#133

Post by comex »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #131
comex wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, if this page is accurate, DataChannels don't really work yet: http://www.webrtc.org/chrome#TOC-Data-Channels- A shame, because I have a use in mind for them. :)

They recently appeared behind an about:flags flag. :)

Well, when I heard that WebRTC was in Chrome stable I thought this must surely include DataChannel, since it's simpler than a full-blown video stack. So although it being behind a flag is better news than it not being there at all, I was still pretty disappointed when I read that page :)

edit: also, I don't see it as an about:flags flag.

edit 2: I should just tunnel data through video then, what could possibly go wrong?

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#134

Post by IgorPartola »

temp453463343 wrote: post #27
IgorPartola wrote: post #3

Imagine how much more awesome this will be when we also have IPv6. We will have no more need for things like ICE [1], just direct point to point communication. Oh, and multicast for giant video chat sessions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Establ...

That's never going to happen b/c there is too much legacy infrastructure and the benefit is marginal. All current home routers are configured to do NAT, so you're not going to be able to have a Skype 2.0 be P2P b/c then you'd need to explain to millions of people how to reconfigure their routers. Also P2P opens a whole new can of worms when it comes to security.

> That's never going to happen b/c there is too much legacy infrastructure and the benefit is marginal.

It is going to have to happen, or there will be no internet.

> All current home routers are configured to do NAT, so you're not going to be able to have a Skype 2.0 be P2P b/c then you'd need to explain to millions of people how to reconfigure their routers.

Current home routers will be replaced within a year or two. They do not last that long. Some people are starting to not have dedicated routers, instead renting equipment from the ISPs.

> Also P2P opens a whole new can of worms when it comes to security.

Firewalls have been around for a long time. We'll survive.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#135

Post by josh2600 »

jbester wrote: post #108
josh2600 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one key element of a Skype Killer, which isn't present in WebRTC, is a prescribed infrastructure to support these communications. Skype is made up of users who actually are, usually, unaware that they are also routing calls for other users. Even more precarious (and absent from WebRTC) are the skype SuperNodes, which no one is going to redo for WebRTC. The things which we love about skype, most notably the direct…

The user supernodes were mostly retired after microsoft bought Skype. See: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-s...

Retired and centralized are different terms. I think you'll find the supernodes are alive and well (just centralized in Redmond). The obvious implication is that it is very hard to monitor a decentralized infrastructure but trivial if the servers are local.

If that was your point, I apologize for being redundant.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#136

Post by josh2600 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #101
josh2600 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of. Now you don't need to build client software, but that was never the real prowess or power of Skype, it was always the infrastructure. Think of it this way. Skype has 2 things that WebRTC doesn't: Signaling and a Directory. Without those two components, you just have a phone without a phone number :/. Lower barrier, yes. Easy? No, there are still significant costs.

Seems like Facebook is pretty close to solving signalling and a directory - in effect it already has them for their messaging service. If you enable chat on Facebook then people can already find you for chat and know if you're [reporting that you're] available. FB is already in bed with Skype though I think so not sure how that would pan out in practice.

There's a difference between phone numbers and the Facebook directory. One is a user-owned identity which can migrate between carriers, the other a walled garden. With a phone number, I have an identity which can be linked to many services including Facebook. With a Facebook login, I am beholden to Facebook as my directory.

I'm not saying that this is relevant, because for the majority of users it isn't. I'm saying this for the hackers who just watched Facebook deny Voxer. If Facebook can capriciously decide who I can and can't talk to, that's not really what I would call an identity. What Facebook gives you is a slice of an identity, the slice it thinks you ought to have.

For many that is enough; for others it is an insult.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#137

Post by analog »

superuser2 wrote: post #126
jstalin wrote: post #6

Well, it's encrypted, so that seems like a reasonable alternative to the potential of being spied upon when using Skype.

So is Skype. Unless there's evidence that Google couldn't be compelled to comply with US law and honor a legally binding order to intercept a Chrome video call?

Google wouldn't be able to intercept a peer to peer connection, isn't that one of the strengths here?

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#138

Post by josh2600 »

superuser2 wrote: post #126
jstalin wrote: post #6

Well, it's encrypted, so that seems like a reasonable alternative to the potential of being spied upon when using Skype.

So is Skype. Unless there's evidence that Google couldn't be compelled to comply with US law and honor a legally binding order to intercept a Chrome video call?

The intercept service you're talking about is CALEA if I'm not mistaken, and it's not yet clear that CALEA applies to IP communications.

VoIP is covered by CALEA, but it isn't yet clear if Video is covered. There's a bit of a raging debate about this in Telco circles. There are basically two arguments:

1) Companies that do not operate exchanges are not liable for CALEA compliance

2) CALEA compliance is not clear.

For the first argument, many folks interpret the law as only covering companies that have equipment inside of phone exchanges (CLECs and ILECs). There is a 3rd class of operator that is only IP with no equipment in the exchange. It is not yet clear if this 3rd class has CALEA as a requirement (Goolge is all IP).

On the second point, there's no clear documentation about acceptable formats for release. Can I send raw log files? Does it have to be a csv? None of this is clearly defined anywhere.

In short, it's a lot more tangled when it comes to video. I'm not certain the Feds could've gotten access to Skype monitoring without $MSFT buying Skype.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#139

Post by ttflee »

IgorPartola wrote: post #134
temp453463343 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's never going to happen b/c there is too much legacy infrastructure and the benefit is marginal. All current home routers are configured to do NAT, so you're not going to be able to have a Skype 2.0 be P2P b/c then you'd need to explain to millions of people how to reconfigure their routers. Also P2P opens a whole new can of worms when it comes to security.

> That's never going to happen b/c there is too much legacy infrastructure and the benefit is marginal. It is going to have to happen, or there will be no internet. > All current home routers are configured to do NAT, so you're not going to be able to have a Skype 2.0 be P2P b/c then you'd need to explain to millions of people how to reconfigure their routers. Current home routers will be replaced within a year or tw…

I'm quite pessimistic about the infrastructure, considering the speed of acceptance of IPv6.

Re: Hello Firefox, this is Chrome calling

#140

Post by anigbrowl »

joshred wrote: post #110
Jabbles wrote: post #18

Note that Chrome (or the application) chooses to reverse the self-view so that it acts like a mirror, whereas Firefox (or its application) chooses to display what the other person sees . It's a hard choice to make.

Why would you make it a mirror image? If they have anything written out it would be backwards.

Because people are used to mirrors. Even people who work around video cameras for a living mix up left and right on daily basis.
Post reply on HN