There are even more reasons why both David and Enrico are right. If p2p is used over HIP, the overlay does not have to worry about NAT traversal, since it is being taken care of by HIP.
HIP may use ICE as has been documented here, but the various p2p and CS protocols can all run ICE unaware. Henry On 7/17/08 12:23 PM, "Enrico Marocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David A. Bryan wrote: >> We should to be continue to very clear that ICE is the mechanism we >> use in deployments where there is any chance there will be a NAT. I >> just think we should try to keep in mind that, perhaps more than other >> WGs, we have some folks who want to do unusual things, and some of >> them justifiable don't need ICE. > > I would like to second this. There are also folks who look forward to > adopting the protocol specified here in research projects focused on > overlays and distributed algorithms in general. P2PSIP would benefit > much from such adoption, but probably the burden of implementing (or > debugging or simply dealing with) ICE would impede it in many cases > (think for example of student projects). _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
