How do I build RAWRTC from source on Ubuntu?

Install prerequisites like meson, ninja, and libssl-dev, then run 'meson build' and 'ninja' in the build directory. The README provides specific commands, but note that some tools require additional configuration flags.

Can RAWRTC handle video or audio streaming?

RAWRTC focuses primarily on data channels and core protocols like ICE and DTLS; media streaming support is not a current feature, so it's best suited for data-only applications or as a base for custom media implementations.

RAWRTC vs Pion: which is better for embedded systems?

RAWRTC is a C library with a smaller footprint and single-threaded design, ideal for resource-constrained embedded C projects. Pion is in Go, offering higher-level abstractions and broader feature support but with more runtime overhead.

How to integrate RAWRTC with a custom signaling server?

Use the provided tools like 'data-channel-sctp' or 'peer-connection' to exchange JSON blobs for local parameters or SDP offers/answers, then implement signaling logic to transmit these blobs over your preferred protocol (e.g., WebSocket).

Does RAWRTC work with WebRTC in browsers?

Yes, through interoperability with the WebRTC API; tools like 'data-channel-sctp' include browser examples for exchanging parameters, but media features may require additional implementation on the browser side.

What are the performance limits for data channels in RAWRTC?

RAWRTC handles large messages (e.g., 16 MiB) without size limits, and throughput can be tested with the 'data-channel-sctp-throughput' tool, but performance depends on network conditions and single-threaded processing capacity.

Is RAWRTC suitable for real-time gaming with low latency?

It can support data channels for game state synchronization, but the lack of built-in media streaming and single-threaded design might limit its use for high-frame-rate audio/video games compared to specialized gaming engines.

rawrtc — Lightweight C WebRTC Library

What is rawrtc?

RAWRTC is a C library that implements the WebRTC and ORTC standards for establishing real-time peer-to-peer connections. It enables developers to add data channel and media streaming capabilities to applications using a lightweight, single-threaded architecture. The library focuses on low resource consumption while providing standards-compliant APIs.

Target Audience

C developers building real-time communication features into embedded systems, IoT devices, or applications where a small footprint is essential. It's also suitable for those needing a WebRTC/ORTC implementation without browser dependencies.

Value Proposition

RAWRTC offers a minimal, portable WebRTC/ORTC stack in C, with no arbitrary message size limits on data channels. Its single-threaded design and comprehensive tool suite make it easier to integrate and test in resource-constrained environments compared to heavier alternatives.

WebRTC and ORTC with a little bit of RAWR!

Use Cases

Best For

Adding WebRTC data channels to embedded Linux devices
Building lightweight real-time communication servers in C
Implementing ORTC APIs for custom signaling stacks
Testing ICE and DTLS connectivity in peer-to-peer networks
Developing SFUs (Selective Forwarding Units) with data channel support
Creating interoperable WebRTC applications without browser engines

Not Ideal For

Applications requiring full TURN server support for reliable NAT traversal in enterprise networks
High-performance media servers needing multi-threaded parallelism for handling multiple video streams
Rapid prototyping in high-level languages like Python or JavaScript, due to C's manual memory management and lower-level API
Environments where TCP-based ICE candidates are essential due to UDP being blocked or restricted

Pros & Cons

Pros

Minimal Resource Footprint

Emphasizes a small footprint and single-threaded event-driven architecture, making it ideal for embedded systems and IoT devices with limited memory and CPU resources.

Standards-Compliant APIs

Implements both WebRTC C-API (W3C/JSEP-based) and ORTC C-API, ensuring interoperability with browsers and other WebRTC implementations as per IETF drafts.

No Message Size Limits

Supports data channels with messages up to 16 MiB without arbitrary size restrictions, unlike many other implementations that cap message sizes, as highlighted in the provided tools.

Comprehensive Tool Suite

Includes command-line tools for testing ICE, DTLS, SCTP, and data channels, which facilitate debugging and integration without needing external testing frameworks.

Cons

Incomplete Protocol Support

Lacks implementation of key features like TURN support, TCP for ICE and STUN, and some transport protocols, as shown in the README's unchecked feature list, limiting NAT traversal options.

C Language Barrier

Requires proficiency in C programming and manual memory management, making it less accessible for developers accustomed to higher-level languages with garbage collection or built-in WebRTC support.

Complex Build Setup

Depends on meson and ninja for building, with additional steps for enabling certain tools, adding overhead compared to simpler package managers or precompiled libraries.

Single-Threaded Bottleneck

While efficient for low-resource environments, the single-threaded event loop can become a performance bottleneck for CPU-intensive tasks like real-time media processing or high-concurrency scenarios.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is rawrtc?

Target Audience

Value Proposition

Use Cases

Best For

Adding WebRTC data channels to embedded Linux devices
Building lightweight real-time communication servers in C
Implementing ORTC APIs for custom signaling stacks
Testing ICE and DTLS connectivity in peer-to-peer networks
Developing SFUs (Selective Forwarding Units) with data channel support
Creating interoperable WebRTC applications without browser engines

Not Ideal For

Applications requiring full TURN server support for reliable NAT traversal in enterprise networks
High-performance media servers needing multi-threaded parallelism for handling multiple video streams
Rapid prototyping in high-level languages like Python or JavaScript, due to C's manual memory management and lower-level API
Environments where TCP-based ICE candidates are essential due to UDP being blocked or restricted

Pros & Cons

Pros

Minimal Resource Footprint

Emphasizes a small footprint and single-threaded event-driven architecture, making it ideal for embedded systems and IoT devices with limited memory and CPU resources.

Standards-Compliant APIs

Implements both WebRTC C-API (W3C/JSEP-based) and ORTC C-API, ensuring interoperability with browsers and other WebRTC implementations as per IETF drafts.

No Message Size Limits

Supports data channels with messages up to 16 MiB without arbitrary size restrictions, unlike many other implementations that cap message sizes, as highlighted in the provided tools.

Comprehensive Tool Suite

Includes command-line tools for testing ICE, DTLS, SCTP, and data channels, which facilitate debugging and integration without needing external testing frameworks.

Cons

Incomplete Protocol Support

Lacks implementation of key features like TURN support, TCP for ICE and STUN, and some transport protocols, as shown in the README's unchecked feature list, limiting NAT traversal options.

C Language Barrier

Requires proficiency in C programming and manual memory management, making it less accessible for developers accustomed to higher-level languages with garbage collection or built-in WebRTC support.

Complex Build Setup

Depends on meson and ninja for building, with additional steps for enabling certain tools, adding overhead compared to simpler package managers or precompiled libraries.

Single-Threaded Bottleneck

Frequently Asked Questions

rawrtc

What is rawrtc?

Overview

Use Cases

Best For

Not Ideal For

Pros & Cons

Pros

Cons

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Projects

Found a gem we're missing?

rawrtc

What is rawrtc?

Overview

Use Cases

Best For

Not Ideal For

Pros & Cons

Pros

Cons

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Projects

Found a gem we're missing?