Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

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
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

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 <with my individual hat on>

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip