Spencer and Tom,
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")
I think your confusion here is mixing the "overlay" and the "peer protocol". In HIP BONE case the overlay is formed by combining HIP and the peer protocol. Hence, while HIP packets can be routed over the overlay, that does not mean that they are routed over the peer protocol.
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")
Perhaps a key issue in understanding this is the separation of the routing table and the forwarding table; see my previous message earlier today.
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
Yes.
(although I don't know whether the fact that peer protocols "overhang" the data transport has any significance in that diagram),
Yes it does. It means that you can use either existing HIP associations (data transport) for transporting peer protocol packets between nodes (Section 3.2), or you may piggyback them in HIP signalling messages (Section 3.3).
<snip> --Pekka Nikander _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
