> "Which protocols does Skype use? > Skype uses a proprietary protocol which we have developed. We looked at > many available protocols when designing Skype and none were good enough > for us. We hope you agree!" Very cute. Well, this basically shows where to place Skype. Apart from that, I really don't think that P2P in Skype's sense of the word is the way to go with GM. I strongly believe that basing the calls (session initialization and also the codecs) on a common basis (meaning loyalty-free open standards) is the right way to go (goto: H.323, SIP, etc.). How else would one be able to insure interoperability? If there'd be a good open protocol that allows P2P-VoIP/Vid-Conf in Skype's sense, sure, why not include it even if there might be some disadvantages. But I'm really not aware of such a protocol, especially none that can seriously be called an "open standard". Don't get me wrong. I don't think that GM must generally stay the way it is right now. I really believe that getting rid of ILS and replacing it e.g. with LDAP would be a good idea, for example. And I think that, including SIP and also looking into multicast with its established open standards and mechanisms is the next logical thing to do. But clearly, the Skype people don't aim at providing other developers with an open standard (at least that's what I make out of what they say in their FAQ). And that's why I think that, while I agree with Matthias that it's important to keep an eye on projects like Skype and its users, it is for the moment not necessary for GM to swim with the P2P wave that Skype's creating for VoIP/Vid-Conf. BTW: what's P2P supposed to mean anyhow?! If it means "communication of one peer with another without the use of intermediary instances (servers, etc.)", then GM already is P2P. The only difference is the session establishment. While you need to register to an ILS for the moment to establish a random (not direct) session with another user (which was also the case with Napster which is, despite this fact, commonly said to be one of the first P2P apps in the popular sense of the word), this is the only principal thing that's different in Skype. The only things that are worth thinking about are the privacy element and the NAT-traversal -- having encrypted streams between two GM peers (as it can be done with Skype) would be a nice thing to have, and easier NAT traversal would also help (even better: kill NAT and use IPv6 -- the best way to go ;-) ). But that's something one could try to implement and standardize (or better the other way around). So, as nice a hype Skype is right now, I really don't see why one should "pollute" the Net with another bandwidth-stealing "P2P" app if a construct like GM with P2P-connectivity and a centralized listing server does a good job. And concerning the users: I believe that serious VoIP/Vid-Conf users wouldn't use a program like Skype. Especially companies need to stick with standards that are widely supported software- and hardware-wise. Even if Skype promises NAT-traversal, I really don't think companies would go for such a solution if there's another one that can interoperate with a vast number of products that stick to the established standards. Just my 2-¤-Cents. Christian P.S.: Sorry for the long mail. I sometimes get a little carried away by those "P2P"-discussions... -- JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN Christian Strauf A DFN project Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung Team: join uni-muenster de Röntgenstrasse 9-13 Priv: strauf uni-muenster de D-48149 Münster / Germany GPG-/PGP-Key-ID: 1DFAAA9A Fon: +49 251 83 31639, Fax: +49 251 83 31653
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil