unable to get remote stream in case when a “remote stream” is attached by calling “peer.addStream(remoteStream)

Issue: unable to get remote stream in case when a “remote stream” is attached by calling “peer.addStream ( remoteStream )”

Is it beneficial to attach remote stream?

Yeah, it allows us overcome burden from a single peer. Burden will be shared.

Also, we can support a wide range of peer’s connectivity.

How to attach remote stream?

var MediaStream = window.webkitMediaStream || window.MediaStream;

firstPeer.onaddstream = function(remoteSteam) {
      remoteStream = new MediaStream(remoteSteam.audioTracks, remoteSteam.videoTracks);
      otherPeer.addStream(remoteStream);  /* attaching remote stream */
};

What I want to do?

1. First peer will handle first three peers
2. 2nd peer will handle next three peers (5, 6, 7)
3. 5th peer will handle next three peers (8,9,10)
4. 8th peer will handle next three peers (11, 12, 13)
5. And so on.

We will get following benefits (in case of success):

1. Video will never freeze for 11th and upper peers
2. 1st peer don’t need to handle all participants
3. You don’t need to install/buy a middle server (like Asterisk) for small projects (to support a few hundred peers’ connectivity)

A known bug in chromium: peer.onicecandidate not fires for 11th peer. You don’t need to worry about that bug!!

Pitfall: If peer number 1, 2, 5, 8 … tries to leave the room without informing other peers to play a host role.

If peer number 2 leaves the room, without informing master peer or peer number 5 to handling upcoming peers.

A demo experiment to test it:

https://googledrive.com/host/0B6GWd_dUUTT8V1Fodm9WQldkb28/

Open 4 tabs…1st table should create room………join room from other tabs…see the behavior of the 4th tab.

[HiroakiLion]

Any progress on this module? I’m looking for a solution for 100-200 listeners vs 1 streamer.

[atsepkov]

@muaz-khan For solving the problem you describe with peer-5 leaving, could the server instead tell peer 6 or 7 (who should be in the same link in the chain as 5) to take over instead? Similarly, could this system be made redundant/safe by having each child peer be aware of all 3 parent peers in the chain and fallback automatically if one drops?