At the previous IETF there was consensus to add direct response routing as an option in the protocol.
See: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/p2psip/minutes?item=minutes73.html This is not yet reflected in the base draft. My previous post to this effect with some changes is below "I would like to propose we add a flag bit in the forwarding/common header that indicates that a direct routing response to a message be used by the responding node. As a policy, implementations in certain scenarios would enable the flag as necessary. If the flag is set, the requesting node also needs to include its reachable address in the forwarding header. We can indicate that the responding node need not keep state to minimize complications. The sending node can simply resend a request (e.g STORE) with the flag turned off if does not receive a response to the initial STORE request with the flag turned on. This allows direct routing support in scenarios where the deployer or the implementation knows it is dealing with reachable IP addresses and can configure the implementation to behave accordingly." Thanks Saumitra
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
