Eric, Sorry, I should have been clearer in my statement: ------ *When used with HIP*, it seems like P2PSIP needs to sit on top of HIP for the addressing HIP provides.... ------
I do realize that currently-proposed P2PSIP protocols will work fine without HIP. Thanks for the info below, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric Rescorla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:25:10 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:"Bruce Lowekamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED],"Henry Sinnreich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],P2PSIP WG <[email protected]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP At Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:59:48 +0000, =?utf-8?B?RGFuIFlvcms=?= wrote: > > Is it just me or is there a fundamental bootstrapping problem here? Not really. You just need to be able to connect to some nodes without using the rendezvous service. > It seems like P2PSIP needs to sit on top of HIP for the addressing > HIP provides.... Well, this certainly is not true. RELOAD will work fine without HIP. In fact, the only currently specified modes are non-HIP, though we anticipate it would be straightforward to do a HIP mode. -Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
