Hi, Das: The term I proposed currently is just for make the meaning of "public" clearer, because it can be used in several situations. For example, when descriping a peer is eligible for a bootstrap peer, relay peer, or turn peer, we need it.
As for your suggestion, I think it's ok. but my concern is that currently it is hard to determine whether two peers are behind the same NAT or not. The more reliable way is to choose some "publicly reachable" peers to be a bootstrap peer to ensure the success of bootstrap proecedure. In our relay draft, authors also propose a method to discover whether a peer is publicly reachable based on some work in BEHAVE WG. So my suggestion is that it is better to make any peer be a bootstrap peer if some mechanism could make other peers' bootstrap process succeed with high probability(if not succeed every time). But it seems it is not easy to achieve that at present. Regards Jiang XingFeng > I think we could be a little more flexible than that too. As long > as a bootstrap peer can allow some devices to join the overlay and > is not reachable by every node in the overlay it can still > function as a bootstrap peer. A node behind a NAT at a small > office may be a bootstrap peer for nodes in that office since it > is part of a larger overlay although it is not reachable by every > member of the overlay. > > What Jiang suggests is definitely an improvement over the current > definition. > Best, > Saumitra > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jiangxingfeng 36340 > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:31 PM > To: Dean Willis > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [P2PSIP] 回复 :Re: Bootstrap peer reachability in draft- > ietf-p2psip-base-00 > > Hi,Dean: > > Maybe a term named "publicly reachable" should be added. With the > new term, we can be clear on the semantics of "public". > > I also defined the term in draft-jiang-p2psip-relay- > 00(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-00.txt) as > the follows: > > publicly reachable: A node is publicly reachable if it can receive > unsolicited messages from any other node in the same overlay. > Note: "publicly" does not mean that the nodes MUST be on the > public Internet, because RELOAD protocol may be used in a closed > system. > > Hope it is helpful. > > Regards > Jiang XingFeng > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2008, at 3:00 AM, jiangxingfeng 36340 wrote: > > > > > I agree. "Public" here does not mean a global routable > address. > > IMO, > > > it depends on the scenarios. As you mentioned, in some closed > > > overlay, it does not require bootstrap peer to have a public > > > address. It only requires that the bootstrap peers can be > > reached by > > > any other peers in the same overlay directly. In relay > > draft(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-00.txt > > > ), authors propose a mechanism to determine whether a peer can > > be a > > > "public peer". > > > > > > I'd like to add a term in concetp draft to make "public" more > clear.> > > > > What term would you like to add? > > > > -- > > 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
