On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
One of the issues I don't understand about this discussion is
whether all instances of P2PSIP would be expected to be running HIP
or just some. There seem to be at least three options:
(1) Mandatory to implement and run
The only non-recursive-dependency model seems to be that peer nodes
would store the HIT-IP bindings in their routing tables. (This
largely negates any mobility advantages, but that's a separate
discussion.)
(2) Mandatory to implement, but there can be instances of an
overlay (or maybe even part of an overlay) that don't use HIP
This would require providing ICE functionality at both the HIP
level and directly to the P2P protocol.
(3) Optional to implement and run
This only works if you can have mixed HIP-non-HIP nodes. Also
requires implementations of ICE in both layers and the ability to
mix-and-match HIP and non-HIP nodes within an overlay, unless each
overlay has a "HIP flag".
I admit that I'm rather worried about the complexity of this whole
edifice. I think it would be helpful if the proponents of a HIP-
based approach stated clearly which of these they have in mind.
Henning
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
I was assuming most folks were talking about (3) given that much of
HIP is still being designed and it will be awhile to get things build
and deployed. I know lots of parts of HIP have been done but when we
are talking about mobility, nat traversal, no DNS, and easy end user
installations, there is still work. Anyway, I am in the 3 category.
Cullen <with my individual hat on>
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
