Opinion: Messenger audio&video problems.

[N. P.]

Hi,
One quick browse through the relevant newsgroups and it is clear immediately
that many users have lots of problems with audio and video in MSN Messenger.
And I emphasize lots of problems. Problems that some say are not present on
other Messengers, such as the Yahoo! Messenger. When will we have a similar
experience on MSN Messenger v6.1 and Windows Messenger v5.0. When will we be
able to simply press the Talk or Camera buttons and not be faced with
network problems?
The problems are usually related to firewalls and nat devices and happen
because MSN v6.1 / Windows v5.0 Messenger:
1. Use a random UDP port for video and audio, not a fixed one. This means
that firewalls need to be UPNP (Universal Plug and Play) compatible for the
port to be opened, something that only the XP firewall is. Also, users need
to be logged on as administrators. Why don't you fix this? Why don't you
choose a fixed UDP port so that it can be opened once and for all on each
firewall? UPNP is advantagious but untill all firewalls implement it (in the
next 10 years perhaps), we users will be suffering!
A. Choose a fixed UDP port for audio and video. Why not?
B. Make the UPNP compatible XP firewall open ports even if the user is a
non-administrator. Why do I need to log on as an administrator just for
audio and video, or just for a little file transfer or just for another MSN
/ Windows Messenger so called "advanced" feature? Why? I can do all my work
without administrative privileges. I need the XP firewall, as everybody
does. Or, why should I be forced to turn it off to have a single audio or
video conversation?
2. MSN Messenger v6.1 and Windows Messenger v5.0, need the ip of the other
party for audio and video connections, as well as other "advanced" features.
But why:
A. Couldn't we have non-direct connections. Couldn't the connection pass
through a relay server, such as the .NET Messenger service for simple things
such as file transfers, instead of being direct pc to pc. Couldn't audio and
video do that too? It would be of a lower quality of course but it will
work. Not like now that it doesn't!
B. Why do you need the ip of the other party anyway? Couldn't MSN / Windows
Messenger get the ip of the inviting party from the .NET Messenger Service
directly. Why should the inviting party or the receiving party itself have
to report their ip? This leads to problems if there is a nat or an Internet
Connection Sharing device in between, since one or both of the parties might
not know their true Internet ip, but will know the nat translated ip on
their respective internal networks. But couldn't MSN / Windows Messenger
simply get the "true" Internet ip of each party from the .NET Messenger
server itself. After all, doesn't the .NET Messenger Service's server know
the "true" ip anyway for instant messaging to work? Why all this fuss about
requiring UPNP routers.
I know and I agree that UPNP has a lot of potential and that it is an
excellent protocol. But forcing it on users in this way is wrong. Instead,
make Messenger UPNP aware but also provide an aulternative, (legasy if you
will) way of managing connections. Isn't that what Yahoo! Messenger does?
Why not MSN Messenger?
Thanks,
N. P.

 

[Jonathan Kay [MVP]]

Greetings NP,

Before I go specifically into what you've raised, a word of caution here -- what else would
you expect on the Messenger newsgroups? Ignoring the rather extensive network configurations
that people have nowadays, Yahoo Messenger isn't perfect either and has even similar
problems, as does iChat AV on the Mac (go check out the Apple discussion groups, sometime,
you'll be surprised).

1:
Messenger will work fine with any software firewall, as long as Messenger has been given
permission to access the full resources of the Internet connection. Firewall's are not a
problem with Messenger -- NATs (routers, internet sharing) are. The built-in Internet
Connection Firewall in XP is getting a complete changeover (the new one is presently in the
Service Pack 2, which is currently in beta and will be released later this year), as such,
most of what you've referred to below in regards to the ICF will no longer apply then.

2:
A) MSN Messenger 6.x *does* provide relay connections for Webcam, file transfer, and all
other functions (display pictures, emoticons, etc.) all go through the server. The only
thing MSN Messenger 6.x does not relay is audio, but realistically a relay wouldn't be able
to sustain a reasonable level of quality for audio. However, to take advantage of this, both
people in the conversation need to be using MSN Messenger 6.x.
B) There is no function present in the current protocol to do this and at this point, I don't
view it as necessary at this point, no major router vendor releases residential routers
without UPnP capability now, and as people adopt new router technology (with WiFi access
points, etc.), lack of UPnP won't even be an issue.

At this point, MSN Messenger 6.x does meet Yahoo Messenger head on in terms of getting around
these problems, as well, there are third-party solutions (even free!) which will help "get
around" routers, etc.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com

 

[James]

I am provided with a router/firewall by my ISP which I
cannot change for various reasons. It does not support
UPnP, but does allow me to forward various ports. I
really *love* msn/windows messenger, I have been using it
for a very long time. However, I have been forced to
move to EyeBallChat, simply because it has audio
capabilities that allow me to have a static UDP port for
audio. Not only have I moved to EyeBallChat, but so have
all my friends. EyeBallChat isn't by any means perfect,
but audio conversations work for a much wider group of
people and it is a very important feature for many people.

I simply don't understand the reasoning behind not
providing a very simple registry key that would allow one
to specify a fixed port. UPnP can still be the default,
but at least it would allow many more people to use audio
communications within msn/windows messenger.

I'm sure the strategy behind MSN/Windows messenger is a
marketting tool for other MSN & Microsoft products.
Surely this means that you would want as many people as
possible using it. Developing a small fixed port audio
patch would definately open up MSN/Windows messenger to a
wider audience.

--James

-----Original Message-----
Greetings NP,

Before I go specifically into what you've raised, a word

of caution here -- what else would

you expect on the Messenger newsgroups? Ignoring the

rather extensive network configurations

that people have nowadays, Yahoo Messenger isn't perfect either and has even similar
problems, as does iChat AV on the Mac (go check out the

Apple discussion groups, sometime,

you'll be surprised).

1:
Messenger will work fine with any software firewall, as

long as Messenger has been given

permission to access the full resources of the Internet

connection. Firewall's are not a

problem with Messenger -- NATs (routers, internet

sharing) are. The built-in Internet

Connection Firewall in XP is getting a complete

changeover (the new one is presently in the

Service Pack 2, which is currently in beta and will be

released later this year), as such,

most of what you've referred to below in regards to the ICF will no longer apply then.

2:
A) MSN Messenger 6.x *does* provide relay connections

for Webcam, file transfer, and all

other functions (display pictures, emoticons, etc.) all

go through the server. The only

thing MSN Messenger 6.x does not relay is audio, but

realistically a relay wouldn't be able

to sustain a reasonable level of quality for audio.

However, to take advantage of this, both

people in the conversation need to be using MSN Messenger 6.x.
B) There is no function present in the current protocol

to do this and at this point, I don't

view it as necessary at this point, no major router

vendor releases residential routers

without UPnP capability now, and as people adopt new

router technology (with WiFi access

points, etc.), lack of UPnP won't even be an issue.

At this point, MSN Messenger 6.x does meet Yahoo

Messenger head on in terms of getting around

these problems, as well, there are third-party solutions

(even free!) which will help "get