> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:24 PM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: Pekka Nikander; P2PSIP Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE
>
> Hi, Thomas,
>
> I'm not sure I'm entirely in sync with the conversation, but
> when I was
> speed-reading HIP BONE over the Christmas break, I saw the
> following text,
> which seems to say that P2P comes first, because the overlay
> is used to
> route I1 packets. ("HIP over P2P")
>
> My understanding of HIPHOP was that HIP came first, because
> it was used to
> forward P2P packets without "popping up" to a P2P protocol
> engine at every
> hop. ("P2P over HIP")
>
> If I am misrepresenting either of these proposals, I apologize.
>
> If I am not, I am confused, and think that this is one of the
> key design
> decisions we need to discuss before moving forward with a
> P2P/HIP proposal,
> which I hope we do, by the way.
Spencer,
Maybe the authors can clarify. I agree that the text you quote suggests
that difference. OTOH, there is Figure 5 that suggests that it is
mainly peer protocols over HIP (although I don't know whether the fact
that peer protocols "overhang" the data transport has any significance
in that diagram), and I thought that Gonzalo remarked during the Boeing
call that HIP BONE and HIP HOP were basically the same.
quoting from the draft:
The HIP BONE allows quite a lot of flexibility how to arrange the
different protocols in detail. Figure 5 shows one potential stack
structure.
+-----------------------+--------------+
| peer protocols | media |
+------------------+----+--------------+
| HIP signalling | data transport |
| |
+------------------+-------------------+
| NAT | non-NAT | |
| | |
| IPv4 | IPv6 |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 5: Example HIP BONE stack structure
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
