RE: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

["Henry Sinnreich" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Roy!

This is actually orthogonal to the HIP discussion - it was my omission
to specify.

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:13 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: Cullen Jennings; P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

Henry:

Right, per P2PSIP Charter objectives.

Best regards,
Radhika

----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Sinnreich 
Date: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:13
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
To: "Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" , Cullen Jennings 
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List 

> Radhika,
> 
> > 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?
> 
> I presume you share the view that "ready for deployment" means open
> available running code and performance reports from actual test
> deployments and you don't mean just eloquently written papers?
> 
> Henry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC 
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:04 AM
> To: Cullen Jennings
> Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
> 
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip