Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Anyone done Video Conferencing with JMF?

Reply
Thread Tools

Anyone done Video Conferencing with JMF?

 
 
John
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2004
I cant find any full applications designed for vid conf with JMF - the
closest is the sample app that comes from sun, but is no good.

Just want a Netmeeting replacement that has clean port usage - I could cope
with just vid/audio

Dont really want to write it from scratch - dont really have the time but
could help if someone's interested?

Cheers
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sudsy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2004
John wrote:
> I cant find any full applications designed for vid conf with JMF - the
> closest is the sample app that comes from sun, but is no good.
>
> Just want a Netmeeting replacement that has clean port usage - I could cope
> with just vid/audio
>
> Dont really want to write it from scratch - dont really have the time but
> could help if someone's interested?
>
> Cheers


<http://www.openh323.org>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Thornton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2004
Sudsy wrote:
> John wrote:
>
>> I cant find any full applications designed for vid conf with JMF - the
>> closest is the sample app that comes from sun, but is no good.
>> Just want a Netmeeting replacement that has clean port usage - I could
>> cope with just vid/audio
>>
>> Dont really want to write it from scratch - dont really have the time
>> but could help if someone's interested?
>>
>> Cheers

>
>
> <http://www.openh323.org>
>


H323 is not my idea of "clean" port usage. This is the protocol which
NetMeeting implements and is why it is such a pain with firewalls. Sure
you can get one machine to work inside many firewalls, but add a second
one and the troubles really start to mount.

If the two ends are inside UPnP firewalls (or NAT devices) and you don't
mind Microsoft and "Passport" then the current version MSN Messenger
works quite well. This uses a central (Microsoft) server to negotiate
the connection (transfer information on the ports opened at each end).

Mark Thornton

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sudsy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2004
Mark Thornton wrote:
> Sudsy wrote:
>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> I cant find any full applications designed for vid conf with JMF -
>>> the closest is the sample app that comes from sun, but is no good.
>>> Just want a Netmeeting replacement that has clean port usage - I
>>> could cope with just vid/audio
>>>
>>> Dont really want to write it from scratch - dont really have the time
>>> but could help if someone's interested?
>>>
>>> Cheers

>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.openh323.org>
>>

>
> H323 is not my idea of "clean" port usage. This is the protocol which
> NetMeeting implements...<snip>


I know. I was adressing the request for a NetMeeting replacement.
OP doesn't want to create it from scratch. H.323 might not be the
perfect player but it's an international standard and supported
widely. Heck, you could probably interoperate with NetMeeting if
you had to. YMMV

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thornton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2004
Sudsy wrote:

> Mark Thornton wrote:
>
>> Sudsy wrote:
>>
>>> John wrote:
>>>
>>>> I cant find any full applications designed for vid conf with JMF -
>>>> the closest is the sample app that comes from sun, but is no good.
>>>> Just want a Netmeeting replacement that has clean port usage - I
>>>> could cope with just vid/audio
>>>>
>>>> Dont really want to write it from scratch - dont really have the
>>>> time but could help if someone's interested?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.openh323.org>
>>>

>>
>> H323 is not my idea of "clean" port usage. This is the protocol which
>> NetMeeting implements...<snip>

>
>
> I know. I was adressing the request for a NetMeeting replacement.
> OP doesn't want to create it from scratch. H.323 might not be the
> perfect player but it's an international standard and supported
> widely. Heck, you could probably interoperate with NetMeeting if
> you had to. YMMV
>


It was designed before the widespread use of NAT. Eventually IPv6 may
remove the need for NAT, but in many current environments H323 is a
complete pain. To be sure there is gateway software which allows the use
of multiple H323 connections across a NAT firewall, but it isn't common
(and probably expensive).
Hmm, instead of replacing NetMeeting, it might be easier to write (in
Java) an H323 gateway which resolved the port usage issues and
transported the data across the firewall(s). Java could easily cope with
the data rates involved. Of course I am only guessing as to why the OP
wanted a replacement for NetMeeting.

Mark Thornton

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sudsy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2004
Mark Thornton wrote:
<snip>
> It was designed before the widespread use of NAT. Eventually IPv6 may
> remove the need for NAT, but in many current environments H323 is a
> complete pain. To be sure there is gateway software which allows the use
> of multiple H323 connections across a NAT firewall, but it isn't common
> (and probably expensive).
> Hmm, instead of replacing NetMeeting, it might be easier to write (in
> Java) an H323 gateway which resolved the port usage issues and
> transported the data across the firewall(s). Java could easily cope with
> the data rates involved. Of course I am only guessing as to why the OP
> wanted a replacement for NetMeeting.


I was thinking in terms of the effort involved in trying to develop a
brand new protocol from scratch. While H.323 is far from perfect, at
least they've addressed the major details. That's why I think it would
be more time/cost effective to look at something open-source which
could interoperate rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
We all know that an elephant is a horse designed by committee but in
this case I've seen nothing else practical. Maybe if you painted some
racing stripes on it then it wouldn't FEEL like a lumbering elephant?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thornton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2004
Sudsy wrote:
> Mark Thornton wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> It was designed before the widespread use of NAT. Eventually IPv6 may
>> remove the need for NAT, but in many current environments H323 is a
>> complete pain. To be sure there is gateway software which allows the
>> use of multiple H323 connections across a NAT firewall, but it isn't
>> common (and probably expensive).
>> Hmm, instead of replacing NetMeeting, it might be easier to write (in
>> Java) an H323 gateway which resolved the port usage issues and
>> transported the data across the firewall(s). Java could easily cope
>> with the data rates involved. Of course I am only guessing as to why
>> the OP wanted a replacement for NetMeeting.

>
>
> I was thinking in terms of the effort involved in trying to develop a
> brand new protocol from scratch. While H.323 is far from perfect, at
> least they've addressed the major details.

Except for usability across NAT which for many is a major stumbling
block. I can't use H323 to connect to my brother and cousin because they
have separate machines hidden behind a single IP address. Like most
consumer level firewalls it can forward the H323 stuff to only one of
the two machines.

Mark Thornton

 
Reply With Quote
 
Sudsy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2004
Mark Thornton wrote:
> Except for usability across NAT which for many is a major stumbling
> block. I can't use H323 to connect to my brother and cousin because they
> have separate machines hidden behind a single IP address. Like most
> consumer level firewalls it can forward the H323 stuff to only one of
> the two machines.
>
> Mark Thornton
>


I did a quick search and found support from Cisco for their IOS routers
and netfilter.org for Linux/ipchains. There's even support from M$ in
their SecureNAT (ROTFLMAO!) software.
IOW, this is not as big of a stumbling block as it used to be just a
couple of years ago. As I said before, it's not a perfect protocol (and
the embedding of IP addresses in some protocol elements was a HUGE
mistake) but it's arguably the best we've got right now.
FYI: Both Linksys and Netgear claim to support H.323 (multiuser) via
NAT.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thornton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2004
Sudsy wrote:

> Mark Thornton wrote:
>
>> Except for usability across NAT which for many is a major stumbling
>> block. I can't use H323 to connect to my brother and cousin because
>> they have separate machines hidden behind a single IP address. Like
>> most consumer level firewalls it can forward the H323 stuff to only
>> one of the two machines.
>>
>> Mark Thornton
>>

>
> I did a quick search and found support from Cisco for their IOS routers
> and netfilter.org for Linux/ipchains. There's even support from M$ in
> their SecureNAT (ROTFLMAO!) software.
> IOW, this is not as big of a stumbling block as it used to be just a
> couple of years ago. As I said before, it's not a perfect protocol (and
> the embedding of IP addresses in some protocol elements was a HUGE
> mistake) but it's arguably the best we've got right now.
> FYI: Both Linksys and Netgear claim to support H.323 (multiuser) via
> NAT.
>

Alternatively this might be a solution: http://www.gnugk.org
There is even a Java GUI for it!
You are right, things have improved. I can't find any references on
NetGear's site for H323 for more than one client.

Mark Thornton

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
video conferencing using Cisco 1811 and Polycom video conference james.winskill@gmail.com Cisco 0 10-03-2007 03:36 AM
Setting up QOS in for video conferencing. rsjimmy Cisco 3 03-07-2006 01:40 PM
IP-IP Gateway for Video Conferencing Matthew Melbourne Cisco 0 10-15-2005 04:25 PM
Video Conferencing roy.bellairs Computer Support 1 01-27-2005 12:29 PM
Web-Camera/Video Conferencing PWB Computer Support 2 09-19-2003 07:05 AM



Advertisments