RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

["Henry Sinnreich" <[e-mail]>]

Radhika,

> what is the problem to proceed per P2PSIP charter for accomplishing
the mandated > work items (may be in a limited way) soon which may be
ready for deployment?

I presume you share the view that "ready for deployment" means open
available running code and performance reports from actual test
deployments and you don't mean just eloquently written papers?

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:04 AM
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

If it is so as Cullen has explained, what is the problem to proceed per
P2PSIP charter for accomplishing the mandated work items (may be in a
limited way) soon which may be ready for deployment?

Cheers!
Radhika

----- Original Message -----
From: Cullen Jennings 
Date: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:40
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
To: David Barrett 
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List 

> 
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:23 PM, David Barrett wrote:
> 
> > We don't need more options for what we CAN do, we need decisions 
> on 
> > what we WILL do.
> 
> Yep - agree. And what I want to do is standardize something that 
> lets me build deployable interoperable solutions soon. Success for 
> me 
> involves deployments.
> 
> > If we're not considering making HIP mandatory, then let's stop 
> 
> > talking about it and start focusing on those things that *will* 
> be 
> > mandatory.
> 
> The P2PSIP WG has made very few decisions since it was formed. 
> IMHO, 
> what we need to do real soon now is pick something as a starting 
> point for a WG document then go and make the decision to change it 
> to 
> be what we want. Until we do that, my belief is that the WG will 
> make fairly marginal progress.
> 
> >
> > That said, I think this HIP discussion is the best thing to 
> happen 
> > in P2PSIP for years. It seems like the most practical and 
> powerful 
> > solution, the best layering of functionality, and the most 
> feasible 
> > design that I've yet to hear. Moving the hard P2P code into a 
> > reusable HIP layer makes a lot of sense,
> 
> this is way outside anything HIP was charted to do or is working on
> 
> > not only for P2PSIP, but for the internet as a whole. It seems 
> > like a wagon that we should voluntarily and enthusiastically 
> hitch 
> > ourselves to, rather than try to reproduce or compete with it, 
> or 
> > toss it in the overflowing bucket of optional extensions.
> >
> > It seems sensible to have a base HIP layer that either comes pre-
> 
> > installed with the OS or redistributed by the application 
> (similar 
> > to WinPCap). (I could even see making a sort of "HIP-lite" self-
> 
> > contained library that can be linked straight into the 
> application 
> > for when installing a Then P2PSIP can be one of many HIP-using 
> 
> > applications that are vastly simplified by being insulated from 
> the 
> > gnarly realities of NAT and firewall penetration, mobility, etc.
> >
> > This makes a lot more sense than continually reproducing this 
> > really hard functionality in every application.
> 
> Most of the concrete proposals layer the p2p code such that the 
> library that provided the p2p part could be used by other 
> applications. This is a good design but not something you need HIP 
> to 
> accomplish.
> 
> >
> > -david
> 
> Cullen 
> 
> >
> > On Jan 11, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I was assuming most folks were talking about (3) given that 
> much 
> >> of HIP is still being designed and it will be awhile to get 
> things 
> >> build and deployed. I know lots of parts of HIP have been done 
> but 
> >> when we are talking about mobility, nat traversal, no DNS, and 
> >> easy end user installations, there is still work. Anyway, I am 
> in 
> >> the 3 category.
> >>
> >> Cullen 
> >> On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> >>
> >>> One of the issues I don't understand about this discussion is 
> >>> whether all instances of P2PSIP would be expected to be 
> running 
> >>> HIP or just some. There seem to be at least three options:
> >>>
> >>> (1) Mandatory to implement and run
> >>>
> >>> The only non-recursive-dependency model seems to be that peer 
> >>> nodes would store the HIT-IP bindings in their routing tables. 
> 
> >>> (This largely negates any mobility advantages, but that's a 
> >>> separate discussion.)
> >>>
> >>> (2) Mandatory to implement, but there can be instances of an 
> >>> overlay (or maybe even part of an overlay) that don't use HIP
> >>>
> >>> This would require providing ICE functionality at both the HIP 
> 
> >>> level and directly to the P2P protocol.
> >>>
> >>> (3) Optional to implement and run
> >>>
> >>> This only works if you can have mixed HIP-non-HIP nodes. Also 
> >>> requires implementations of ICE in both layers and the ability 
> to 
> >>> mix-and-match HIP and non-HIP nodes within an overlay, unless 
> >>> each overlay has a "HIP flag".
> >>>
> >>> I admit that I'm rather worried about the complexity of this 
> >>> whole edifice. I think it would be helpful if the proponents 
> of a 
> >>> HIP-based approach stated clearly which of these they have in 
> mind.>>>
> >>> Henning

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

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