> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:47 AM > To: Dondeti, Lakshminath > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] The case for direct response support in RELOAD > > At Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:30 -0800, > Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Responding to a few of your emails in these recent threads: > > > > When considering the "common" use cases, it may be worthwhile to > > consider various small, medium and large enterprises where > some, many > > or most of the employees may be in motion carrying mobile devices > > either with them in person or in a truck being part of an overlay. > > Surely those devices can't all be forced to be "clients" in > all cases. > > What do you mean "forced"? Being a client is a benefit, not a duty. >
Being a client is a benefit to the client itself, but, not necessarily to the overlay. Being a client is also a local decision. If many devices in the system actually chose to be clients, that is not a good thing for the system as a whole. So, we want to incentivize nodes to be peers whenever possible. It really makes me uncomfortable when I hear things like designing for a LAN or flatly dismissing wireless/mobile devices as clients, etc. Not that I'm saying that any device, no matter what its capabilities are, should be peers. OTOH, being mindful of the increasing population of wireless and mobile devices and generally making the system function optimally is a good thing. - Vidya > -Ekr > > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
