[p2p-sip] what's wrong with DNS?

[adamfisk at gmail.com (Adam Fisk)]

>  I don't know what you are smoking.
>

The good weed.

The point of a Distributed Hash Table is that no one node has the whole
> thing, and the network can maintain the database if individual nodes go
> down.  Any form of classic SIP registration doesn't do anything like that;
> you are registered at ONE registrar, and if that registrar becomes
> unavailable, you can't get calls.   Commercial implementations often use
> redundant databases and proxies to make their registration service reliable,
> but you can' use classic registration to do the kind of peer to peer things
> a DHT will do.
>

OK, let's step back for a moment.  I'm making a pretty simple suggestion
here to offer what to me is the primary benefit of p2p SIP, namely low cost
telephony for the masses, with a much simpler implementation.  In this
system, every node would be a dynamic DNS client.  Every node would be
registered with some non-firewalled peer(s) out there.  If that connection
is severed, the client connects to a new non-firewalled registrar and
updates the DNS.  It's as simple as that.

The problem isn't necessarily you losing connection to a registrar, it's
> your peer being unable to connect to your registrar and thus being unable to
> contact you.
>

That's where DNS comes in.  Your peer just calls you as your peer normally
would.

The fundamental robustness is that the database is distributed and
> replicated; any node can get you to any part of the database even when peers
> come and go.
>

The system I just described does the same thing, and it does it using
existing technology that's far less complicated.

-Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20061121/bf3f4df5/attachment.html