Hi, Cullen and Henning,
I guess today is a good day for me to be confused.
I thought I understood "optional to implement, optional to run", and I
understood Cullen's reasons stated below, but I'm very confused about why
"this only works if you can have mixed HIP-non-HIP" ...
... and that's probably because I'm not quite sure what "mixed HIP-non-HIP"
means.
Are you talking about
a - mixed within P2PSIP technology, so that some overlays use HIP and others
do not?
b - mixed within the same endpoint, that can join a HIP overlay and a
non-HIP overlay?
c - mixed within the same overlay, so some peers use HIP and others do not?
I'll stop talking now ...
Spencer
From: "Cullen Jennings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
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
