Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

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