Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
"Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" <radhika.r.roy@us.army.mil> Fri, 11 January 2008 17:04 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 1JDNIm-000516-2l; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:04:16 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDNIl-000510-0x for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:04:15 -0500
Received: from mxoutps1.us.army.mil ([143.69.250.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDNIg-0000t3-13 for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:04:14 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: s=ako; d=us.army.mil; c=nofws; q=dns; h=From:X-AKO:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:To:Cc: Message-ID:Date:X-Mailer:MIME-Version:Content-Language: Subject:X-Accept-Language:Priority:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=RcezIPBdtgKG2lS3VtvUAw3gK/6JxtJpGwua7POYF7YVJ2i/wJHEjQmW 2r51pK7FQpLKZi8QKNyvj3VIW0ZPiQ==;
From: "Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" <radhika.r.roy@us.army.mil>
X-AKO: 106069435:10.224.36.65:11 Jan 2008 17:04:09 +0000:$Webmail:None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,272,1196640000"; d="scan'208";a="106069435"
Received: from mail5.int.ps1.us.army.mil (HELO us.army.mil) ([10.224.36.65]) by mxoutps1.us.army.mil with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2008 17:04:09 +0000
Received: from [10.240.32.176] (Forwarded-For: 134.80.13.193, [10.240.32.176]) by mail5.int.ps1.us.army.mil (mshttpd); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:04:09 -0500
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e1e2f6d96894.47875b39@us.army.mil>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:04:09 -0500
X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.2-9.04 (built Jun 11 2007)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
X-Accept-Language: en
Priority: normal
In-Reply-To: <284DBC3B-BF18-400D-8D00-3EB367AEAAA3@cisco.com>
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> <4571B070-0B2F-4076-AAAB-4398295C9E88@cisco.com> <465FBE4D-F548-4D7C-855C-10498AF22E6C@quinthar.com> <284DBC3B-BF18-400D-8D00-3EB367AEAAA3@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d
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
If it is so as Cullen has explained, what is the problem to proceed per P2PSIP charter for accomplishing the mandated work items (may be in a limited way) soon which may be ready for deployment? Cheers! Radhika ----- Original Message ----- From: Cullen Jennings Date: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:40 Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory? To: David Barrett Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List > > On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:23 PM, David Barrett wrote: > > > We don't need more options for what we CAN do, we need decisions > on > > what we WILL do. > > Yep - agree. And what I want to do is standardize something that > lets me build deployable interoperable solutions soon. Success for > me > involves deployments. > > > If we're not considering making HIP mandatory, then let's stop > > > talking about it and start focusing on those things that *will* > be > > mandatory. > > The P2PSIP WG has made very few decisions since it was formed. > IMHO, > what we need to do real soon now is pick something as a starting > point for a WG document then go and make the decision to change it > to > be what we want. Until we do that, my belief is that the WG will > make fairly marginal progress. > > > > > That said, I think this HIP discussion is the best thing to > happen > > in P2PSIP for years. It seems like the most practical and > powerful > > solution, the best layering of functionality, and the most > feasible > > design that I've yet to hear. Moving the hard P2P code into a > > reusable HIP layer makes a lot of sense, > > this is way outside anything HIP was charted to do or is working on > > > not only for P2PSIP, but for the internet as a whole. It seems > > like a wagon that we should voluntarily and enthusiastically > hitch > > ourselves to, rather than try to reproduce or compete with it, > or > > toss it in the overflowing bucket of optional extensions. > > > > It seems sensible to have a base HIP layer that either comes pre- > > > installed with the OS or redistributed by the application > (similar > > to WinPCap). (I could even see making a sort of "HIP-lite" self- > > > contained library that can be linked straight into the > application > > for when installing a Then P2PSIP can be one of many HIP-using > > > applications that are vastly simplified by being insulated from > the > > gnarly realities of NAT and firewall penetration, mobility, etc. > > > > This makes a lot more sense than continually reproducing this > > really hard functionality in every application. > > Most of the concrete proposals layer the p2p code such that the > library that provided the p2p part could be used by other > applications. This is a good design but not something you need HIP > to > accomplish. > > > > > -david > > Cullen > > > > > On Jan 11, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > > >> > >> 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 > >> 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
- [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