Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
"David A. Bryan" <dbryan@sipeerior.com> Fri, 11 January 2008 15:51 UTC
Return-path: <p2psip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDMA5-0003Gx-8s; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:51:13 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDMA4-0003Gr-Gh for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:51:12 -0500
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.187]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDM9z-0007HV-9C for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:51:12 -0500
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1011924rvb.49 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:51:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=6vZsj2CWTVrUepQHH56CiM+Gdx3qLKL7685G0ovQ4Z4=; b=EHJ/ezp3DWGZo0f7PdBWVPDCsE72t5KSTwRGsnihhxn6qDOB8jFerGNo57xCbH3s3+Box/cujHolyDJj1+W6V1kE3knqpggeObHUJujpQX5VqwZxmnNJIU2f6X8+49MDj194kWYzXTsS1zUSkJwfahePo3PqSqi0XhQznF0u5A0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=vvJsW852oDSGeOGE0CLPeLgi7GenDHy2i4VVIjxXxotMqTO0Q4vHv5Li4vX3qiQPZk8PglQRz52x8j3A2/GpLNmai3SOyCmRWwtCH7MZOIe9Y5s3SATf2AaU9wj2HBjHheEcwjwycCdowhEZoXEZj9o1HAUoDzV1R8YrX+vbKRg=
Received: by 10.141.99.4 with SMTP id b4mr2081930rvm.196.1200066666908; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.65.180.16 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4d4304a00801110751s18507eecv51041ba2999d8e8e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:51:06 -0500
From: "David A. Bryan" <dbryan@sipeerior.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
In-Reply-To: <4d4304a00801110750g22ac7ab6s56fdf0bb98e3bcfd@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <476BA8D9.4010203@ericsson.com> <7C5B8529-85C9-4977-8C57-34E9041ED1EC@nomadiclab.com> <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D04049B33@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <10DA6CAF-DB5B-4B89-9417-4BEFD816B1E5@cs.columbia.edu> <4571B070-0B2F-4076-AAAB-4398295C9E88@cisco.com> <0c3a01c85402$28d821e0$6601a8c0@china.huawei.com> <CBAEA83C-A2BB-47E7-AE49-A3E901DDB50C@cs.columbia.edu> <4d4304a00801110710x1b7f04b4lcbcbb9eb8702ba1e@mail.gmail.com> <0d2101c85468$034c4080$6601a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4d4304a00801110750g22ac7ab6s56fdf0bb98e3bcfd@mail.gmail.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d9e69b9d33efff63
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List <p2psip@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org
Er, I guess I *hear* you and agree with you *here* ;) On Jan 11, 2008 10:50 AM, David A. Bryan <dbryan@sipeerior.com> wrote: > I think I pretty much agree with you hear. If (c) is implemented as > two overlays bridged together, I'm much more comfortable with that, > but one overlay where messages between some peers are HIP and some are > not seems a bit more architecturally brittle to me, especially if some > peers can only speak one or the other. (then again, we can have mixed > TCP/UDP hops in SIP, but I am not sure that is a good thing) If (c) is > bridging, it can effectively work the same as bridging two overlays > with different DHTs (although the open question is if HIP is used for > the bridge then ;) ) > > David (as individual) > > > On Jan 11, 2008 10:38 AM, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> wrote: > > Hi, David, > > > > I think you're right about the !("one ring to rule them all") part. > > > > After re-reading Henning's email down to the part that said > > > > > On Jan 10, 2008 10:52 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > I think we're discussing an application scenarios question. > > > > If you can bridge two overlays, you don't need to convert to non-HIP when a > > non-HIP peer tries to join - just bootstrap a non-HIP overlay and bridge. > > > > If that's not possible, then you need to figure out what to do when a > > non-HIP peer joins. > > > > If the expected application is amateur video sharing, you can probably fail > > the join request and tell someone to upgrade (this is what happens when I > > try to connect to AIM with an old client, right?). That's a lot simpler than > > anything else. > > > > If the expected application is first-responder ad-hoc, you probably > > shouldn't fail the request... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Spencer > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > P2PSIP@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > > > > -- > David A. Bryan > dbryan@SIPeerior.com > +1.757.565.0101 x101 > +1.757.565.0088 (fax) > www.SIPeerior.com > -- David A. Bryan dbryan@SIPeerior.com +1.757.565.0101 x101 +1.757.565.0088 (fax) www.SIPeerior.com _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list P2PSIP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
- [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Bruce Lowekamp
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Salman Abdul Baset
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- [P2PSIP] HIP-P2P-SIP message flow examples Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Gonzalo Camarillo
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Ali Fessi
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Gonzalo Camarillo
- [P2PSIP] Resolving SIP URIs with HIP Ali Fessi
- [P2PSIP] a modular approach for integrating HIP f… Ali Fessi
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- RE: [P2PSIP] a modular approach for integrating H… Henderson, Thomas R
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henderson, Thomas R
- [P2PSIP] Re: a modular approach for integrating H… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] Re: a modular approach for integrati… Miika Komu
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Bruce Lowekamp
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Bruce Lowekamp
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Ali Fessi
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Bruce Lowekamp
- RE: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Bruce Lowekamp
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Bruce Lowekamp
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Ali Fessi
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- Re: [P2PSIP] New draft: HIP BONE Pekka Nikander
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- Re: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC
- RE: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Gonzalo Camarillo
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? JiangXingFeng
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Oredope, Adetola
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? David Barrett
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? marcin.matuszewski
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Erkki Harjula
- Re: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Enrico Marocco
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? marcin.matuszewski
- RE: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? marcin.matuszewski
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Enrico Marocco
- Re: RE: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? marcin.matuszewski
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Erkki Harjula
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? marcin.matuszewski
- RE: RE: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? marcin.matuszewski
- RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC