> Any comments? > > Jouni Actually, I would argue that a new P2PSIP protocol may be useful but not necessarily mandatory at all and here is why:
1. Any P2P solution must work for more than SIP, especially with for other Rich Internet Applications (RIA) and older ones as well: Application level multicast, blogging, social networks, wikis, video, range search, not invented yet. 2. This is possible only by using HIP for NAT traversal for _all_ application level protocols. 3. Using HIP, the existing native p2p protocols can be used such as Bamboo, with SIP as one of several applications on top of the p2p overlay. No other special protocols are required, though one may be useful. My problem is I have not found any reason why a special protocol would be required of we just use the following: Application ======================= SIP/RTP ======================= Any P2P optimally suitable for the specific application ======================= HIP with NAT traversal ======================= UDP/TCP ======================= IP ======================= I would be interested to hear what else is required for SIP in particular. Thanks, Henry On 7/22/08 11:41 PM, "Jouni Mäenpää" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > As pointed out in [1], DHT-based overlays usually need to be configured > statically (e.g. by assuming a certain churn level and network size). > The problem is setting the parameters so that the overlay achieves the > desired reliability and performance even in challenging conditions, such > as under heavy churn. This naturally results in high cost in the common > case or alternatively, poor performance or even network partitioning in > worse than expected conditions. This kind of hand-tuning rarely works in > real settings because it requires perfect knowledge about the future. > > In my opinion, the P2PSIP WG should specify a self-tuning DHT algorithm > which would adapt to the operating conditions (e.g. network size and > churn rate). This would make it possible to use the DHT in a wide range > of environments instead of e.g. only small-scale low-churn networks. > > Any comments? > > Jouni > > [1] R. Mahajan, M. Castro, and A. Rowstron. Controlling the cost of > reliability in peer-to-peer overlays. In IPTPS, 2003 > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
