> reload-03 added hop-by-hop reliability from p2pp. Search for ACK > in > the text. I view hop-by-hop reliability and via-lists as orthogonal.
I will check it shortly. > > > I agree that the fragmentation solution needs more work. Again, > there's a state tradeoff. If you don't use the via-list, you have > to > store more state on the peers. The vast majority of messages, > however, won't have a destination list containing more than one > ID, > and won't traverse that many hops on the way to their destination. I agree with you it is a state tradeoff between payload efficiency and the complexity of the peer implementation. What I am afraid of is whether the via list would be exploited by the attacker to threaten the security of the P2P system. I am not clear in this regrad. I hope the P2PSIP community would discuss it. > > Direct response doesn't work when a NAT is in the way, > unfortunately. Hybrid routing approaches that fall back to > symmetric > response if the other techniques don't work are possible, but add > a > lot more complexity. >From my understanding, the first peer in the text refer to the peer ID of the >source peer. Is my understanding right? If it is, it could route the reponse >directly by using the peer ID although it should fail while routing the JOIN >response. > > If a direct connection can't be established, the protocol could > use a > TURN relay or could rely on source-routing to relay through > another > peer (this would be how to implement the relaying peer concept > used > in SEP). We spent some time discussing both of these options. > Right > now, I think the implicit assumption is that TURN will be used, > but > relaying using the peer protocol directly is another possibility. > We > talked about this a little bit in working on -03, but it's one of > the > things that just ran out of time. (to me, one of the hardest > questions is what you do if you can't establish a direct > connection > with your replica set. If you have to relay, you're introducing > additional points of failure.) I am very interested in this topic and hope we could discuss it in the coming WG meeting. _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
