One way to think about P2P SIP is a Skype-like service platform based on open standards. AKA Skype envy¹ :-)
Any other applications for P2P SIP? P2P has however a very large spectrum of other (non-SIP) applications that can be found in various tutorials. Henry On 6/26/08 3:27 PM, "Sukanta ganguly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I was wanting to ask you folks this question about the application of P2P > SIP from your views. I have been following this email trail and since many of > you are from the industry I wanted to understand a little from your > perspective, the potential applications of P2P SIP. I would really appreciate > if you people share their views and understanding here. > > Thanks > SG > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Henry Sinnreich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Dean Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Gonzalo Camarillo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; P2PSIP WG <[email protected]>; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:35:32 AM > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP > > Dean, > > Yes to all your questions. > > Henry > > > On 6/26/08 10:26 AM, "Dean Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> > >>> >> Hi Henry, >>> >> >>>> >>> Yes, I know, developing HIP code looks like opening a whole new can >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> worms, but nothing compares to what we are looking at now when >>>> >>> trying to >>>> >>> traverse NAT, support mobility, multihoming, etc. for each >>>> >>> application >>>> >>> protocol and their various flavors separately. >>> >> >>> >> yes, that is what HIP is about (i.e., implementing those functions >>> >> at a lower layer so that they do not have to be redesigned by every >>> >> single application-layer protocol). >>> >> >> > >> > This asks the question "Why don't we believe in HIP in this role?" >> > >> > Is it because we've seen HIP struggling to advance for many years and >> > think we can move more quickly? >> > >> > Is it because we think the IETF's immune system will suppress HIP but >> > that application-level work can move through? >> > >> > Is it because we think that doing this stuff at the HIP level requires >> > widespread OS and IP stack changes, but that we can deploy application- >> > level solutions without it? >> > >> > Is it because we think that if HIP solves the problems, then there >> > will be no fun work left to do on applications? >> > >> > Or is there something else? >> > >> > There must be some reason, as I would think that if people really >> > believed in HIP that the entire resources of the IETF would be bent >> > towards getting it wrapped up and ready to go, since solving these >> > problems again and again for every different application makes no more >> > sense than would reinventing IP for every application. >> > >> > -- >> > Dean > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
