Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

"Bruce Lowekamp" <lowekamp@sipeerior.com> Thu, 10 January 2008 23:18 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 1JD6fS-0000Y1-Jk; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:18:34 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD6fQ-0000Wr-RN for p2psip@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:18:32 -0500
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD6fO-0001EQ-2t for p2psip@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:18:32 -0500
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so1796642wah.25 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:18:29 -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=kl9tBwH9QggeypVsaFV1Aa+ZEHguERfOx+W39wyUtTI=; b=SxoUTwRfEuQeQh/HVlgBjjsBE65W3g5YV9hnX35JIBXsNB9Own6uDq4xMb3/GTqZlDYzJgF54YUrzGdWTxa+C9joxKU1u8fzHN8yHGIOJHkNi9m1GkWsrQnz7HD8PZXa/vlwrt1cRx81mjHO7/CqzaE6vw8went/BBuedg962DA=
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=bmI5LGMJmR7z9+waZQjU1j3tR0HEw+KMYAX/S55WzRfouIKENwcS0UDIbqgo5tMuUyi6dwg+ziKiNudq4m5ksjfam12HTeCad22j4ouDmgmIm4u9Yv8TA+Tt+3L9PCA65ztIc5A/SWbQYKXjgzGGFcXYRHxyNXlTbmLhvT0VcNA=
Received: by 10.115.74.1 with SMTP id b1mr2890861wal.93.1200007108958; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.209.13 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20d2bdfb0801101518v5dccb062u421633da5fb7d34c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:18:28 -0500
From: Bruce Lowekamp <lowekamp@sipeerior.com>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
In-Reply-To: <4BE2B95B-B5F6-4FBF-AB03-F38A6004E11E@cs.columbia.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <476BA8D9.4010203@ericsson.com> <20d2bdfb0712210823m2218c4a6mcace60af3d82db57@mail.gmail.com> <476E2B7C.9070601@ericsson.com> <20d2bdfb0801081416t41b9b84atb3a147659771036@mail.gmail.com> <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D04049B22@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <7C5B8529-85C9-4977-8C57-34E9041ED1EC@nomadiclab.com> <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D04049B33@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <10DA6CAF-DB5B-4B89-9417-4BEFD816B1E5@cs.columbia.edu> <20d2bdfb0801101505n71da2740y7cbfa56f6e846643@mail.gmail.com> <4BE2B95B-B5F6-4FBF-AB03-F38A6004E11E@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: b3903a677c23303d
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
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

On Jan 10, 2008 6:15 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> If it's optional, would it mean that the upper layer has to be aware
> of its existence, possibly re-running ICE on ORCHIDs?
>

I think it may mean that the upper layer (other applications) need to
be aware they don't have to run ICE, at least for efficiency (they
could do it).


> Can we envision hybrid HIP-non HIP overlays?
>
> Again, I'm rather worried about the complexity of this whole effort. I
> think one reasonable criterion of going forward is that those who are
> *not* interested in using HIP shouldn't have to pay for it, in terms
> of implementation costs, interoperability or performance.
>

I fully agree.  It only makes sense if it's actually a separable module.

Bruce

>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
>
> > Henning,
> >
> > I think it can done in a modular way that will make it possible for it
> > to be optional to implement and run.  Then vendors and deployments can
> > decide whether they want to use it or not.
> >
> > I'm not entirely convinced that HIP is the right solution, but I'm
> > interested enough in it that I think it will be cool to play with and
> > see how well it works.  That to me says it should be an optional
> > component. If it's successful, obviously it will be more widely
> > adopted.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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