[Joeboy]

I can't really see how Skype can stay in the game after browsers support VOIP. At the moment if one party doesn't have Skype, it generally means either they end up installing it or (more likely) you abandon VOIP. At the point when you can say "no problem, just go to this URL...", Skype starts to seem pretty redundant. Of course that won't happen immediately, and always the possibility the plan might get derailed somehow, so I'd agree that Skype interop would be good.

[viraptor]

They have nat-free servers and their own automatic nat-traversal methods. Even if every single browser supports VOIP, you won't be able to use it between 2 random people using standard home connection. Until we get out of the lack of IPv4 addresses situation there can be no true peer to peer network.

[tonfa]

Why would it be peer to peer?

That's actually an issue with skype on mobile (which I think is fixed now since they use centralized servers for mobile connections).

[viraptor]

I assumed P2P, since Joeboy mentioned "no problem, just go to this URL...". If you're not doing this in a P2P way, then you need an account with third party and the third party sometimes needs to transfer both your signalling and your audio. That means they need to get money for that from somewhere...

In that case you're pretty much in the same position as with Skype - just without a download. Account, configuration, potential payments, etc. remain.

Edit: Actually now I see a solution - if only one person had an account, this would still be possible and he could start a call by sending some URL. So for the other person this is "just go to this URL". Unfortunately we still need a third party to handle the traffic unless you require the account holder to ensure their network is capable of acting as a server.

[Joeboy]

Sure, I wasn't particularly thinking it would be peer to peer. It can easily be through somebody other than Skype though.

[pgeorgi]

WebRTC includes the various standard methods for NAT hole punching (STUN and the like)

[drivebyacct2]

The PeerConnection API has methods of doing NAT traversal. STUN, etc. It's already covered.

[skypeopensource]

Its not enough. Need something like skype supernode functionality.

[drivebyacct2]

I don't understand why. I'm not a networking expert but I have some experience with networking... I mean, I've already tried a proof-of-concept out with a computer behind a NAT router and it worked fine.

[viraptor]

Think about 2 devices (A,B) behind routers in different networks. Connections from A end up on B's router since there's no existing connection to match and connections from B end up on A's router. Unless you explicitly configure port forwarding B will never know that A is calling him.

[drivebyacct2]

Is that not precisely what STUN/TURN is for?

[skypeopensource]

Yeah, skype supernode concept very sexy.