Correct, the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome is probably the main reason why there are so many NAT traversal solutions around, instead of using HIP for all applications, just like using IP for everything. It is a good example how local optimization can be counterproductive to solving a common problem. Maybe the SIP, MMUSIC, BEHAVE folks should get together with the HIP folks and let us all know what/if they a have a problem with HIP and let us all know what it may be.
Sources quoted on this list for HIP include those by Ari Keränen: >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-03.txt >> [2] http://hip4inter.net/ >> [3] http://infrahip.hiit.fi/ >> [4] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-camarillo-hip-bone-01.txt WG chairs and ADs: Please feel free to forward this to the AIB, IESG. It would make an excellent topic for the General Session at the 72 IETF. Please let us know how it goes. Henry On 6/26/08 11:41 PM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dean, > > for sure you know about the Not Invented Here syndrome IETF WGs usually > develop, right? ;o) > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > Dean Willis 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
