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

Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

mediasoup.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#11

Post by fulafel »

supermatt wrote: post #9
fulafel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video transmitted over webrtc srtp is natively dtls encrypted between peers.

Yes, that is the "full mesh" that I mention in my comment... This platform - and jitsi/janus/zoom/whatever - all use an SFU for more than a handful of participants.

But thats very doable. And no need for the unaccelerated ffmpeg wasm afaics, and no need to use a "sfu".

I don't know what Mediasoup does, was just commenting on what webrtc can do re the "the current state of webrtc" subject.

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#12

Post by kabes »

AnonC wrote: post #2

This website could be a lot more useful if it answered these questions: * How good is this compared to other alternatives? (Or why choose this instead of something else?) * Where are the client apps for this, more importantly on mobile?

This is more of a low level API. Not some ready to use thing like Jitsi. That is already a big difference with alternatives. Performance seems good: https://webrtchacks.com/sfu-load-testing/

And it is very actively developed, which is arguably the most important metric in the current webRTC environment. Since the spec and browser implementations are a fast moving target right now and for the years to come.

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#13

Post by kabes »

supermatt wrote: post #9
fulafel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video transmitted over webrtc srtp is natively dtls encrypted between peers.

Yes, that is the "full mesh" that I mention in my comment... This platform - and jitsi/janus/zoom/whatever - all use an SFU for more than a handful of participants.

For some reason I can't reply to fulafel. But a full mesh is definitely not very doable when you're dealing with a larger amount of people. Close to all conferencing solutions today are working via an SFU for a reason. E2E encryption via the SFU gets more and more attention and is being worked into the spec. But it can't be counted as state of the art in webRTC today

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#14

Post by supermatt »

fulafel wrote: post #11
supermatt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the "full mesh" that I mention in my comment... This platform - and jitsi/janus/zoom/whatever - all use an SFU for more than a handful of participants.

But thats very doable. And no need for the unaccelerated ffmpeg wasm afaics, and no need to use a "sfu". I don't know what Mediasoup does, was just commenting on what webrtc can do re the "the current state of webrtc" subject.

Do you have any examples of a webrtc video conferencing platform that provides a sufficient user experience over full mesh with 4 or more participants on disparate internet connections?

Im just saying that this library (and similar platforms) ARE the cutting edge of webrtc. At small number of participants, they use full mesh (which is e2ee), but at larger scale, they need to use an SFU (which is not e2ee without jumping through some crazy hoops - but this is being worked on)

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#15

Post by fulafel »

kabes wrote: post #13
supermatt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is the "full mesh" that I mention in my comment... This platform - and jitsi/janus/zoom/whatever - all use an SFU for more than a handful of participants.

For some reason I can't reply to fulafel. But a full mesh is definitely not very doable when you're dealing with a larger amount of people. Close to all conferencing solutions today are working via an SFU for a reason. E2E encryption via the SFU gets more and more attention and is being worked into the spec. But it can't be counted as state of the art in webRTC today

Most calls are not between large amount of people, a portion of webrtc applications would rather compromise on particiant # than security.

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#16

Post by fulafel »

supermatt wrote: post #14
fulafel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But thats very doable. And no need for the unaccelerated ffmpeg wasm afaics, and no need to use a "sfu". I don't know what Mediasoup does, was just commenting on what webrtc can do re the "the current state of webrtc" subject.

Do you have any examples of a webrtc video conferencing platform that provides a sufficient user experience over full mesh with 4 or more participants on disparate internet connections? Im just saying that this library (and similar platforms) ARE the cutting edge of webrtc. At small number of participants, they use full mesh (which is e2ee), but at larger scale, they need to use an SFU (which is not e2ee without jump…

No (but i hope they exist, havent looked) - however not all webrtc apps are general videoconf platforms. You don't even need servers if you go full p2p.

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#17

Post by supermatt »

fulafel wrote: post #15
kabes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason I can't reply to fulafel. But a full mesh is definitely not very doable when you're dealing with a larger amount of people. Close to all conferencing solutions today are working via an SFU for a reason. E2E encryption via the SFU gets more and more attention and is being worked into the spec. But it can't be counted as state of the art in webRTC today

Most calls are not between large amount of people, a portion of webrtc applications would rather compromise on particiant # than security.

For small numbers of participants, many of these platforms use full mesh (which is e2e encrypted).

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#18

Post by supermatt »

fulafel wrote: post #16
supermatt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of a webrtc video conferencing platform that provides a sufficient user experience over full mesh with 4 or more participants on disparate internet connections? Im just saying that this library (and similar platforms) ARE the cutting edge of webrtc. At small number of participants, they use full mesh (which is e2ee), but at larger scale, they need to use an SFU (which is not e2ee without jump…

No (but i hope they exist, havent looked) - however not all webrtc apps are general videoconf platforms. You don't even need servers if you go full p2p.

You still need servers to handle the signalling, perform ICE and TURN where applicable.

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#19

Post by fulafel »

supermatt wrote: post #17
fulafel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most calls are not between large amount of people, a portion of webrtc applications would rather compromise on particiant # than security.

For small numbers of participants, many of these platforms use full mesh (which is e2e encrypted).

Yep, but you can't trust that e2e is a property of the app then, unless it prominently features in the ui.

Re: Mediasoup – WebRTC Video Conferencing

#20

Post by fulafel »

supermatt wrote: post #18
fulafel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No (but i hope they exist, havent looked) - however not all webrtc apps are general videoconf platforms. You don't even need servers if you go full p2p.

You still need servers to handle the signalling, perform ICE and TURN where applicable.

Only if you need to support users without full internet connectivity. Again webrtc can be used in many different requirement contexts.
Post reply on HN