RE: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

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

Gengyu, 

 

> What is p2p layer? What do you mean "p2p layer"?

 

 

There is quite clearly exemplified in:

 

 
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-matthews-p2psip-
id-loc-00.txt 

 

 
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-baset-p2psip-p2p
p-01.txt Please see Fig. 2.

 

One could not explain it any better IMHO.

 

Henry

 

________________________________

From: Wei Gengyu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:59 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

 

Henry,

  

I am very appreciated your comments. And no new questions about this
thread.

 

But I hope to get hints on some already raised questions. 

Would you please help me clarify that?

 

What is p2p layer? What do you mean "p2p layer"?

 

In "draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00.",we can see 'p2p-layers' 

that including IPv4 or IPv6, UDPv4 or UDPv6?, HIP or ESP, TCP or UDP,
and distributed database. 

The 'p2p layers'contain five layers. 

 

I need to know the difference between "p2p layer" and 'p2p layers'.

So, I shall see where you put HIP under p2p layer.

 

In "draft-hautakorpi-p2psip-with-hip-01.txt", there are four suggestions
in protocol layer scheme.

Only (a) of Figure 3 contains HIP, but HIP is set on top of Peer
protocol.

whist there is no words of "p2p layer", it seems that Peer protocol
should at that layer.

 

Refer to  "draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04 - Concepts and Terminology
for Peer to Peer SIP",

"2.  High Level Description

 

   A P2PSIP Overlay is a collection of nodes organized in a peer-to-peer
   fashion for the purpose of enabling real-time communication using the
   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).  Collectively, the nodes in the
   overlay provide a distributed implementation of the location service
   [RFC3261] for mapping Addresses of Record (AoRs) to Contact URIs.
   They also provide a transport service by which SIP messages can be
   transported between any two nodes in the overlay.

 

   A P2PSIP Overlay consists of one or more nodes called P2PSIP Peers.
   The peers in the overlay collectively run a distributed database
   algorithm.  This distributed database algorithm allows data to be
   stored on peers and retrieved in an efficient manner.  It may also
   ensure that a copy of a data item is stored on more than one peer, so
   that the loss of a peer does not result in the loss of the data item
   to the overlay.   "

 

Unforunately, there is no explicit definition of "p2p layer" in the I-D

although so many people say "p2p layer" in this mailing list.

 

Even it seems to be a silly quetion, "p2p layer" is still a vague
concept when people say it.

So, I think that WG needs to make this basic definition clear. 

 

Best regards,

 

Gengyu 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Henry Sinnreich <mailto:[e-mail]>  

	To: Wei Gengyu <mailto:[e-mail]>  ; P2PSIP Mailing
List <mailto:[e-mail]>  

	Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:21 AM

	Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

	 

	> My problem is when HIP is used at the application layer, 

	> or using the same algorithm to generate Peer ID. 

	 

	HIP runs below the application layer and also below the p2p
layer. 

	HI is different from the p2p nodeID or application layer (such
as SIP) identifiers, such as AoR.  

	 

	Henry

	
________________________________


	From: Wei Gengyu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 5:25 AM
	To: P2PSIP Mailing List
	Subject: Fw: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

	 

	 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Wei Gengyu <mailto:[e-mail]>  

	To: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
Philip Matthews <mailto:[e-mail]>  

	Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List <mailto:[e-mail]>  

	Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:25 AM

	Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

	 

	Jeff,Spencer, and Philip, 

	 

	First, thank you all for your correction.

	 

	HIP might work well as RFC4423 defined.

	 

	My problem is when HIP is used at the application layer, 

	or using the same algorithm to generate Peer ID. 

	 

	If HIP-like algorithm is used in the overlay while HIP is used
between network layer and transport layer,

	the Peer ID will share the same name space with Host ID.

	For rfc4423, when a node have multiple Host IDs, they only cost
memory spaces a little.

	If one host are permited to have multiple Peer IDs that happen
to belong to one overlay, 

	it would incur potential risks to the P2PSIP overlay.

	 

	And it seems not be capable to tackle this case in RVS of HIP. 

	Is there something wrong?

	 

	Regars,

	 

	Gengyu

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