You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@openmeetings.apache.org by "R. Scholz" <re...@abakus-edv-systems.de> on 2020/05/15 17:13:54 UTC
New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Hello,
today we had a online-conference from our marketing-company.
They have their own conference-system.
Total easy to login and runs very nice.
All members (without exception) have no problems to enter the
conference-room and use their microphone
and, the notebook-user, their camera.
I must admit freely: Not bad.
I think there are some features we shpuld have a deeper look on it - and
implement in our OM.
- No problems with ports: All members, including the members from
official institutions, can login without problems and no changes with
their firewall.
(I asked one (or two) weeks ago that question.) And use the microphone
and camera.
Essential point: It seems it is possible to make a
video/audio-conference with all peoples, including this one who are
behind a "Great firewall".
- The handling -> New OM-feature: "Quick-conference":
1.) Calling a URL
2.) Enter a Name
Thats all.
(That was the only information we got from the marketing-company.) And
it works.
(We must use Google-Chrome. It was recommended.)
- a very tidy desktop: a few icons and all work very good, including
sharing desktop.
- OK, security is not a focus here. But that is a "Quick-conference".
...
If anybody wants to try:
https://besprechung.konferenzen.online
With best regards,
René
Re: New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Posted by Konstantin Kuzov <ma...@gmail.com>.
I doubt it that apache has something like that. Though I haven't used it
for more than 10 years. There are so much better alternatives..
I think haproxy definitely should have such functionality,
It's not really about less ports as generally you don't want to tunnel
everyone through tcp as it will add latency and hiccups if there are tcp
retrains. But about providing ability of last resort to connect with users
which are behind very restrictive firewalls. Like 443 port only. And you
have only one IP-address on server and want both coturn and web server
reside on one the same port for outside. So special magic is required.
To archive that you need to provide ability to provide multiple TURN urls,
including specifying the flavour of them. Like that:
https://github.com/CkNoSFeRaTU/openmeetings/commit/abad92d6b4fcc03884de18143e3e96eaa3591d53
Then you setup something as frontend that analyze first incoming packet
(typically TLS ClientHello) and decide if they need to redirect that
connection to turn server or not. There are can be many configurations and
what you can look as distinguisher: SNI, ALPN or even protocol...
There I placed some of my experiments with nginx and two domains, one for
coturn and one for om:
https://nosferatu.g0x.ru/pub/openmeetings/443-only/
On chromium-based browsers It works like a charm. But last resort
path doesn't work on firefox for some reason. Didn't investigated much
why...
P.S. Commented part in nginx`s configuration is how jitsi does it. That way
it will break chromium-based browsers's websocket because they doesn't send
ALPN extension for websocket connection for some reason.And in case of OM
that means that there will be infinite spinning wheel for such browsers..
вс, 17 мая 2020 г. в 10:05, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 21:52, Konstantin Kuzov <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The only thing Jitsi does regarding to ports in default configuration is
>> using nginx's APLN map feature (
>> http://nginx.org/en/docs/stream/ngx_stream_ssl_preread_module.html) to
>> hide default stun/turn ports behind nginx https port. But be aware that
>> this feature can break secure websocket for some browsers like chrome.
>>
>
> I'm not aware of this module
> Does it exists for Apache?
> Can it be used (with care) to create config with less ports required?
>
>
>>
>> )сб, 16 мая 2020 г. в 17:36, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> This service uses Jitsi
>>> I'm still not sure if it is possible to configure WebRTC to use less
>>> ports
>>> AFAIK it is impossible
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Maxim
>
Re: New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 21:52, Konstantin Kuzov <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The only thing Jitsi does regarding to ports in default configuration is
> using nginx's APLN map feature (
> http://nginx.org/en/docs/stream/ngx_stream_ssl_preread_module.html) to
> hide default stun/turn ports behind nginx https port. But be aware that
> this feature can break secure websocket for some browsers like chrome.
>
I'm not aware of this module
Does it exists for Apache?
Can it be used (with care) to create config with less ports required?
>
> )сб, 16 мая 2020 г. в 17:36, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>:
>
>> This service uses Jitsi
>> I'm still not sure if it is possible to configure WebRTC to use less ports
>> AFAIK it is impossible
>>
>>
--
Best regards,
Maxim
Re: New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Posted by Konstantin Kuzov <ma...@gmail.com>.
The only thing Jitsi does regarding to ports in default configuration is
using nginx's APLN map feature (
http://nginx.org/en/docs/stream/ngx_stream_ssl_preread_module.html) to hide
default stun/turn ports behind nginx https port. But be aware that this
feature can break secure websocket for some browsers like chrome.
)сб, 16 мая 2020 г. в 17:36, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>:
> This service uses Jitsi
> I'm still not sure if it is possible to configure WebRTC to use less ports
> AFAIK it is impossible
>
>
Re: New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 00:14, R. Scholz <re...@abakus-edv-systems.de>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> today we had a online-conference from our marketing-company.
> They have their own conference-system.
>
> Total easy to login and runs very nice.
> All members (without exception) have no problems to enter the
> conference-room and use their microphone
> and, the notebook-user, their camera.
>
> I must admit freely: Not bad.
>
> I think there are some features we shpuld have a deeper look on it - and
> implement in our OM.
>
> - No problems with ports: All members, including the members from
> official institutions, can login without problems and no changes with
> their firewall.
> (I asked one (or two) weeks ago that question.) And use the microphone
> and camera.
> Essential point: It seems it is possible to make a
> video/audio-conference with all peoples, including this one who are
> behind a "Great firewall".
>
This service uses Jitsi
I'm still not sure if it is possible to configure WebRTC to use less ports
AFAIK it is impossible
>
> - The handling -> New OM-feature: "Quick-conference":
> 1.) Calling a URL
> 2.) Enter a Name
> Thats all.
> (That was the only information we got from the marketing-company.) And
> it works.
>
You can generate URL send it to your parties
they will enter the name on enter
can participate :)
Our current registration form is a little bigger than one field :))
>
> (We must use Google-Chrome. It was recommended.)
>
> - a very tidy desktop: a few icons and all work very good, including
> sharing desktop.
>
> - OK, security is not a focus here. But that is a "Quick-conference".
>
> ...
>
> If anybody wants to try:
> https://besprechung.konferenzen.online
>
> With best regards,
>
> René
>
>
>
>
>
--
Best regards,
Maxim
AW: New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Posted by "Rohrbach, Gerald" <G....@funkegruppe.de>.
Rene, this looks like Jitsi
For Video conferencing it´s okay and simple to setup.
But functionality is different than OM.
Running on corporate links and firewalls seems to work fine with our subsidiaries.
But with the German AVM Fritzbox router we did not got it working.
There was a hard delay of video/voice, several seconds. ( often > 10 seconds)
With all testing changes, forwarding, priority we did not got it working.
The Internet bandwidth with 50/10 Mbit should be okay. We tested with
different people, different links, differnent laptops/Pc`s
It seems that the box has some priority for VOIP somehow setup.
At the end this was the killer to use it, as a lot of people do have such a router in the home office.
WLAN always seems to have not the best bandwidth for Jitsi and also OM.
That’s why I recommend always cable connection to get a good result.
Maybe someone knows a solution for this.
Regards
Gerald.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: R. Scholz [mailto:rene.scholz@abakus-edv-systems.de]
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Mai 2020 19:14
An: user@openmeetings.apache.org
Betreff: New Features: "very fast conference" and more
Hello,
today we had a online-conference from our marketing-company.
They have their own conference-system.
Total easy to login and runs very nice.
All members (without exception) have no problems to enter the conference-room and use their microphone and, the notebook-user, their camera.
I must admit freely: Not bad.
I think there are some features we shpuld have a deeper look on it - and implement in our OM.
- No problems with ports: All members, including the members from official institutions, can login without problems and no changes with their firewall.
(I asked one (or two) weeks ago that question.) And use the microphone and camera.
Essential point: It seems it is possible to make a video/audio-conference with all peoples, including this one who are behind a "Great firewall".
- The handling -> New OM-feature: "Quick-conference":
1.) Calling a URL
2.) Enter a Name
Thats all.
(That was the only information we got from the marketing-company.) And it works.
(We must use Google-Chrome. It was recommended.)
- a very tidy desktop: a few icons and all work very good, including sharing desktop.
- OK, security is not a focus here. But that is a "Quick-conference".
...
If anybody wants to try:
https://besprechung.konferenzen.online
With best regards,
René