Radhika, > what is the problem to proceed per P2PSIP charter for accomplishing the mandated > work items (may be in a limited way) soon which may be ready for deployment?
I presume you share the view that "ready for deployment" means open available running code and performance reports from actual test deployments and you don't mean just eloquently written papers? Henry -----Original Message----- From: Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:04 AM To: Cullen Jennings Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? If it is so as Cullen has explained, what is the problem to proceed per P2PSIP charter for accomplishing the mandated work items (may be in a limited way) soon which may be ready for deployment? Cheers! Radhika ----- Original Message ----- From: Cullen Jennings Date: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:40 Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? To: David Barrett Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List > > On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:23 PM, David Barrett wrote: > > > We don't need more options for what we CAN do, we need decisions > on > > what we WILL do. > > Yep - agree. And what I want to do is standardize something that > lets me build deployable interoperable solutions soon. Success for > me > involves deployments. > > > If we're not considering making HIP mandatory, then let's stop > > > talking about it and start focusing on those things that *will* > be > > mandatory. > > The P2PSIP WG has made very few decisions since it was formed. > IMHO, > what we need to do real soon now is pick something as a starting > point for a WG document then go and make the decision to change it > to > be what we want. Until we do that, my belief is that the WG will > make fairly marginal progress. > > > > > That said, I think this HIP discussion is the best thing to > happen > > in P2PSIP for years. It seems like the most practical and > powerful > > solution, the best layering of functionality, and the most > feasible > > design that I've yet to hear. Moving the hard P2P code into a > > reusable HIP layer makes a lot of sense, > > this is way outside anything HIP was charted to do or is working on > > > not only for P2PSIP, but for the internet as a whole. It seems > > like a wagon that we should voluntarily and enthusiastically > hitch > > ourselves to, rather than try to reproduce or compete with it, > or > > toss it in the overflowing bucket of optional extensions. > > > > It seems sensible to have a base HIP layer that either comes pre- > > > installed with the OS or redistributed by the application > (similar > > to WinPCap). (I could even see making a sort of "HIP-lite" self- > > > contained library that can be linked straight into the > application > > for when installing a Then P2PSIP can be one of many HIP-using > > > applications that are vastly simplified by being insulated from > the > > gnarly realities of NAT and firewall penetration, mobility, etc. > > > > This makes a lot more sense than continually reproducing this > > really hard functionality in every application. > > Most of the concrete proposals layer the p2p code such that the > library that provided the p2p part could be used by other > applications. This is a good design but not something you need HIP > to > accomplish. > > > > > -david > > Cullen > > > > > On Jan 11, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > > >> > >> 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 > >> 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 _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
