> The p2psip message goes to the B2BUA near the source, and then to the > other B2BUA that is nearest with the destination. Does somebody have > some comment on this solution. Or any other better thinking? Thank you.
I see two problems with this approach: 1. B2BUAs contradict the Internet transparency idea at the application level. See ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4924.txt 2. B2BUA pose problems for SIP. See ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-sbc-fun cs-05.txt Internet transparency is IMO one of the key reasons for the success of the Internet. B2BUA may be a local optimization, but they destroy most of the advantages of the Internet. Even inside one operator domain, B2BUA add complexity that may prove not to be manageable or the system may not to be scalable. This is a personal opinion and most probably not shared by the B2BUA folks :-) Henry On 6/8/08 5:26 AM, "xianghan.zheng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > I am going to do some research in the P2PSIP privacy part, my current > thought is to propose the B2BUA, which is also the p2psip peer between > the source peer and the destination peer. B2BUA peers are the static > peers distributed in the overlay and they are secure enough and know > each others. > > The p2psip message goes to the B2BUA near the source, and then to the > other B2BUA that is nearest with the destination. Does somebody have > some comment on this solution. Or any other better thinking? Thank you. > > Best Regards, > Xianghan Zheng > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
