RE: [P2PSIP] Re: Design decisions

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

Victor Pascual Ávila wrote:

➢ From my point of view P2PSIP should has an AS philosphy, not relying on other 'external' services.

1. P2P SIP requires a network of bootstrap servers as well. 
So why not in the form of openDHT?

2. A P2P overlay may be used for more than just one type of service.

3. Clean separation of functions.

4. Columbia University has researched several approaches, including the use of openDHT.

5. Last and most important, Bamboo on openDHT has well published performance reports and fixes from what was learned in global implementations and lab simulations to cope with Internet impairments. 
I have not seen any comparable numbers or graphics showing reported performance. See the top 4 bullets at http://opendht.org/pubs.html  

Just well written I-Ds are no substitute IMHO. 

Thanks, Henry



________________________________________
From: Victor Pascual Ávila [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:22 PM
To: EdPimentl
Cc: Henry Sinnreich; Kundan Singh; P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Re: Design decisions

Hello all,
2007/3/5, EdPimentl <[e-mail]>:
Hello Henry,

Thanks for addressing this concern.
Because of the previous work done at Columbia.edu and good documentation we have been leaning towards CHORD.... 
Have even applied at getting a slice at PlanetLAB to develop and test our work. 

As far as I know it relies on 'Internet connection'. From my point of view P2PSIP should has an AS philosphy, not relying on other 'external' services. What do you think?

We actually will begin planning and coding in the next two weeks using the latest drafts from P2PSIP and Henning S. 
I really do welcome comments and suggestions on which one to start with so we can be true to the letter and spirit of this WG. 
Again, welcome feedback and recommendations.

Thanks in advance and best regards,
-E

Regards,
Victorp 

On 3/5/07, Henry Sinnreich < [e-mail]> wrote:


-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Sinnreich 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 10:30 AM
To: 'EdPimentl'; JiangXingFeng
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List; Kundan Singh; 'Henning Schulzrinne'
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] RE:

Ed Pimentel wrote:

>Why are we using OpenDHT as an example, when currently OpenDHT method of >putting bits on the wired is not compliant with the drafts being >discussed. 

This is a good and also important question that will require some work to answer properly. Please see one alternative:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-singh-p2p-sip-01.txt 

though I want to make it clear I am not married to this approach or any other submitted so far.

Now that the P2P SIP WG has quite a number of proposals, including the above, I would like to see a paper on the design options and a comparison of the pros and cons of the various concepts. 

This is probably the most important decision this WG will make and such a decision deserves a formal comparison paper and thorough discussions.

We may be attached (or even invested in) to one proposal or another, but do we want to fail by rushing into the wrong decision? 

What do you all think? Take a hum during the meeting?
(Paper on design choices)

Thanks, Henry

________________________________________
From: EdPimentl [mailto: [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:25 AM
To: JiangXingFeng
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RE:

Why are we using OpenDHT as an example, when currently OpenDHT method of putting bits on the wired is not compliant with the drafts being discussed. 
What is the group recommending for those planning on building/coding (line in the sand) to the emerging standards? CHORD, BAMBOO, KADEMLIA or OpenDHT?
We do understand that at some point in the future it will be DHT protocol agnostic... and today this is not the case. 

Looking for your comments.
Best,
-E
On 3/4/07, JiangXingFeng <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Hi, Henry:
> Your understanding is correct, and I see no reason not to use 
> openDHT-like networks (maybe even commercial as intended by its
> developers) either:
>
> 1. A multipurpose global "Internet at the application layer", and/or
> 2. A bootstrap mechanism for P2PSIP. 
>
> A discussion would be very interesting and welcome indeed.

Do you mean that the infrastructure like what OpenDHT provides to provide
service is used to organize P2PSIP overlay and help new nodes bootstrap? 

If my understanding is correct, the OpenDHT should run as stable as
possible, because there will a variety of applications or services will be
built on it. In this case, the quality of nodes making up of OpenDHT is very 
different from peers which are discussed in the current P2PSIP mailing list,
so the design of Peer protocol should change accordingly.

What about your opinions?

--
Jiang XingFeng






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



--
Thanks in advance and best regards,

Ed Pimentel



Mail: edpimentl[at]gmail.com
IM: edpimentl [AOL | Jabber | Yahoo | MSN ]
Voip: edpimentl [SKype | GoogleTalk ] 

Mobile Content Marketing/Management/Digital Delivery 
http://mobilecentral.ws

Mobile ( Relevant, Ambient, Location ) based Social Network
http://TagR.mobi (Alpha)

Mobile Payment - P2P Payment 
http://agilepay.ws

Sponsor of P2PSIPopen source [viasip_ng] project
Creating a standards base P2PSIP dSIP infrastructure 
https://sourceforge.net/projects/viasip/
Mailing List [e-mail]



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



-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

mail:[e-mail] 
sip:[e-mail]
fon user: 223364 

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