Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

["David A. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

Hmmm...(b) and (c) doesn't make sense to me, unless I'm missing
something. After reading Spencer's email, (a) and (b) make more sense
to me.

I agree with Cullen that HIP should me optional both to implement and
run. That means that many overlays may simply not support it all, and
others may use it exclusively, giving us the (a) scenario. A
particular endpoint may choose to implement both, allowing it join
both types of overlays, which is (b).

(c) makes little sense to me operationally, although I guess I can see
how it could be done technically if there are some (b) type peers that
are effectively relays. It would make for some really odd DHTs,
however, since you might have to route calls via the adaptors, and I'm
not sure it really gains you anything.

In my mind, this would be a capabilities negotiation issue. Although
the mechanics of how you do it might differ a good bit, logically it
might be good to think about it like offer-answer in SIP. If I start
an overlay, I'm free to choose the DHT and if it is SIP or not. If, on
the other hand a few peers were negotiating among themselves, they
could compare capabilities (DHTs, HIP or not, security model, etc.)
and choose the best. I don't think we have a "One ring to rule them
all..." thing going on where every single peer is in a global overlay,
although there could be some (very) large and essentially public
rings. There will be rings with different choices on DHT/transport,
and that decision may limit who can join that particular ring.

So I guess since we are all picking numbers here, I am the (3)(a and
b) camp. I might just not have my head around (c), however...anyone
care to take a stab at explaining how it actually works?

David (as individual)

On Jan 10, 2008 10:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm assuming that the goal is that a P2PSIP-compliant application will
> be able to participate in any P2PSIP-compliant overlay, subject to
> having code for the DHT  the overlay is running. Thus, this means that
> non-HIP peers must be able to be full peers. Unless the arrival of a
> single non-HIP peer converts the whole overlay to non-HIP usage, this
> also implies that all nodes must be able to deal with non-HIP peers,
> even if they prefer to speak HIP. Among other things, they'll probably
> have to implement ICE and TLS.
>
> Thus, it's something like (b) and (c).
>
> Henning
>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> > Hi, Cullen and Henning,
> >
> > I guess today is a good day for me to be confused.
> >
> > I thought I understood "optional to implement, optional to run", and
> > I understood Cullen's reasons stated below, but I'm very confused
> > about why "this only works if you can have mixed HIP-non-HIP" ...
> >
> > ... and that's probably because I'm not quite sure what "mixed HIP-
> > non-HIP" means.
> >
> > Are you talking about
> >
> > a - mixed within P2PSIP technology, so that some overlays use HIP
> > and others do not?
> >
> > b - mixed within the same endpoint, that can join a HIP overlay and
> > a non-HIP overlay?
> >
> > c - mixed within the same overlay, so some peers use HIP and others
> > do not?
> >
> > I'll stop talking now ...
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>



-- 
David A. Bryan
[e-mail]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip