Re: Signaling without a server

> You don't technically need a server; it's just the easiest way to set up a
> session. Technically, all you need is some means of rendezvous and a channel
> to exchange information about device capability, intention, location on the
> network, and so on. You can use any arbitrary means to exchange that
> information, as long as it's kind of real-time in nature

Yeah, I know. In fact, currently I'm using an annonimous XMPP server
and a PubNub channel, but this seems to me a little bit of "hackerish"
and also it's still requiring an external server to do the
bootstrapping (I'm developing a P2P framework over WebRTC -
http://shareit.es and http://webp2p.io , the webs are work-in-progress
-, and after joining the network subsequent handshakings can be done
without problems using the other peers as intermediates), just only
that you are using one that you don't manage. I'm talking about not
requiring servers at all. Some people (like in the link that you send
me) have ask me about setting by hand the IP and port, maybe after
connecting to the STUN server to have the connection info available
(using only a STUN server would be more truly considered "serverless"
than requiring an annonimous XMPP server... :-D ). Also, my first idea
was to write the SDPs by hand in the same way the example on your link
works or reaching them from public published ones on blog posts or
similar places, but it was told me that SDPs expire after just some
minutes, so this was a no way. I asking about we could discuss some
solution on this way...


> carrier pigeon would pose problems
>
Lol, I though I was the only one was still doing this joke :-P


--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux

Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 21:36:31 UTC