There is a much better solution alternative to Skype and its called Damaka (www.damaka.com). They advertise that they can do all that Skype can do and even more like H.264 video and desktop sharing strictly peer to peer WITHOUT any servers in the middle and without any SUPERNODES in the middle.

It seems like it can do IM, email, audio calls, audio conference, H.263 and H.264 video, video conference, multiple lines, music on hold, voice mail, file sharing and now DESKTOP SHARING all end to end encrypted using TLS and sRTP and strictly using peer to peer via SIP.

Check it out: http://www.damaka.com

Due to numerous problems with the service and unfortunate marketing choices, Skype has an uncomfortable week in the spotlight. The Skype gripes began last week with Aswath’s scathing rebuke of the new Netgear Skype phone: Netgear router can help…

Skype’s approach to relaying traffic isn’t P2P either. In fact, the very concept of “relaying traffic” is incompatible with the concept of Peer to Peer. Relaying traffic is just a reality we have to deal with for some rare really really messed-up networks and their users, where STUN has failed.

Now, you can do that the sleazy way, and hijack someone’s computer to relay the traffic. Or you can put your own servers in strategic locations throughout the planet to relay traffic for your users. Skype adopted the former approach. Gizmo adopted the latter approach.

“Supernodes” are just “servers”, the same way certain SIP proxies may relay RTP traffic for you. It’s the exact same thing. Except that Skype’s approach hijacks some poor sap’s computer to turn her/him into a “Supernode”.

This is all silly. But in the end, practice shows that if you use SIP for signaling, your members can be reached through SIP addresses. It may be simpler or harder to find out what that sip address is, but in the end there’s always a way.

for example my earthlink SIP account can be reached by my email address. sip:hollandct@earthlink.net or mailto:hollandct@earthlink.net . Same thing. Since earthlink does not yet have a Mac sip client, i’ve configured SJPhone, and it works like a charm. The same way i can use any POP/SMTP client i want with my earthlink e-mail address.

If i had my way, all phone numbers would be replaced by SIP addresses. Vendors would come-up with a consensus to extend the vCard specification to support SIP addresses, such as an “X-SIP” field. All handheld devices would be IP and SIP-ready, with a vCard-compatible importing facilities over IR, Bluetooth, or IP.

In fact, in an ideal world, i’d never exchange a “phone number” with someone. I’d just “beam” them, e-mail them, a vCard, write an easy-to-remember sip-address on a piece of paper.

in an ideal world, all Domain Name Registrars would offer free SIP forwarding, so it’s super easy for someone to register their own domain name, and use it for a personalized SIP address. All calls coming to my personalized SIP address could be routed to whoever my SIP-provider-du-jour is, for example, if you SIP me at sip:chris@chriswuzhere.com i would tell the domain registrar for chriswuzhere.com to route all SIP calls to sip:hollandct@earthlink.net .

There is no need for existing numbering scheme, or yet another numbering scheme, or another gold rush to some other centralized “directory”.

DNS is all we need.

On to the point, SuperNodes and proprietary protocols:
SuperNodes have long been known to be a part of Skype. After all, Skype’s heritage is Kazaa to Joltid to Skype, which all believe that P2P means using intermediaries for the delivery/relay of data/information and the use of those intermediaries at their will. Skype’s P2P idea/methodology may have come from the days of SETI – where any user anywhere in the world could install a screensaver that when engaged allowed SETI to use that computers resources for complex calculations for the benefit of advancing the human race. However, as we all know, this is not true Peer-to-Peer communications, and it appears that Skype/eBay are mainly interested in advancing themselves. Several players in the market do offer direct peering alternatives, including Wavago. But SuperNodes are consuming more than just bandwidth – they also consume computer resources (CPU and Memory) for other users’ communications. Each on there own is significant, and I have talked to many users that cannot understand why their computer is running so slowly with Skype running, and fine when it is not running – answer is a combination of the shear size of Skype (recently referred to as bloat-ware) running somewhere in the 25MB + memory range, it’s use of CPU, and the use of SuperNodes.
Proprietary Protocols: in my many years of experience, the question of using standards or not has presented itself many many times. I am a standards advocate, but just because a particular system conforms to a standard does not mean that they are interoperable for example. If we look at SIP, while the published protocol is a ‘standard’ the implementations may differ, and more to the point the ability for one SIP system to ‘converse’ with another is not guaranteed in any way. In fact, the real issue with communications across systems (providers) lies not only in the protocol but probably more importantly in the directory location services – where are you in this system in relation to who you wish to contact in another system, and how do the disparate systems relay that information? Now SIP has gone a long way in this direction, but in the end it relies on the ability and willingness of the individual system providers to conform and publish this information.

Wavago’s approach was quite simple – support the existing major protocols transparently (Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, MSN, Google and Skype), support SIP and only if and where required utilize a proprietary protocol. No use of SuperNodes, use direct peering technologies. Include communications, information and entertainment services in one application. Minimize footprint for computer and network resources. Make the contact the center, remove the complexity of multi-protocol communications, and make it easy to use.

http://www.Wavago.com

It’s a closed protocol. It’s AOL Mail circa 1989.

I’ll second Rick’s remark, Gizmo Project ( http://www.gizmoproject.com/ ) or any other SIP-based alternative is a far better way.

One of the reasons SIP works very well 99.99% of the time for everyone, is because all SIP clients make good use of the STUN protocol which works very well around most NAT issues. I’ve done SIP calls behind two layers to NAT without a glitch, a 192.168. network plugged to a 10.0.0 network plugged to my DSL pipe.

And in the very rare cases where it’s not possible for two SIP peers to connect, the handshaking process in the SIP protocol provides a framework for the data (RTP) traffic to get relayed by a host between the two peers.

I believe Gizmo (sipphone.com) has set-up a bunch of dedicated hosts throughout the planet to handle traffic relay between SIP peers who can’t connect to each other.

None of that silly monkey supernode bullcrap.

DTMF works on Gizmo too. Skype doesn’t most of the time. Gizmo is SIP too.

Gizmo is just one example of a better service. More to come. Gizmo has PSTN calling, so it’s my favorite.