Jeffrey, The current text of the draft actually says that the overlay name must be a name that can be resolved via a DNS SRV query. This obviously needs to be relaxed some to support ad hoc overlays or other situations where there isn't a domain associated with the overlay (although that's almost certainly the right solution for a provider-based overlay).
So let's say that ad hoc overlays aren't subject to this requirement and can pick their own names, and two pick "myoverlay" as the name. Even then, the certificates would not match, so if two of those peers did happen to talk with each other, they would reject each other's credentials, so the overlays would not merge. Bruce On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:22 AM, JeffreyHo <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear sir, > > In RELOAD overlay network, would the overlay name for each isolated P2P > overlay be unique? If two P2PSIP service providers want to build up their > own P2P RELOAD overlay and have own dedicated enrollment server but > unfortunately they configure the same overlay name, will this situation > result in any abnormal or conflict operations within these two P2P overlay > networks? If yes, how we ensure the uniqueness of overlay name? Would the > mechanism for applying an unique overlay name like applying domain name be > necessary? > > Thanks a lot. > > BR, > Jeffrey > > 本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。 > This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or > disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient. > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
