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

[seanol at exchange.microsoft.com (Sean Olson)]

I don't understand -- we didn't limit the charter of the SIP WG to just voice. Why would it be different for P2PSIP?  Why would you get less service from the P2P network than a traditional trapezoid? IM, file transfer, video, etc. are all reasonable modalities for P2P. Am I missing something that would make these harder than voice?

For multicast, the issue is not technical support but admin enablement. Some do; some don't. I've got nothing against using multicast as one option. But if it is the only option, that would be a deployment blocker in many real-world customers.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Barrett [mailto:dbarrett at quinthar.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:53 PM
To: Sean Olson; 'Henry Sinnreich'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Matthew Kaufman'; slavitch at gmail.com
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; 'Kundan Singh'
Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] Fwd: what's wrong with DNS?

Incidentally, I believe ad hoc networks *do* support multicast.  Indeed,
multicast on the LAN is actually quite common (it's multicast on the WAN
that's generally not available).

Furthermore, it's my impression that the scope of our charter *is* limited
to voice.  If we don't draw the line there, then where *do* we draw the
line?

-david

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Olson [mailto:seanol at exchange.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:45 PM
> To: David Barrett; 'Henry Sinnreich'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Matthew Kaufman';
> slavitch at gmail.com
> Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; 'Kundan Singh'
> Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] Fwd: what's wrong with DNS?
>
> I'm not advocating limiting this to voice. mDNS is great except when
> multicast is not available. But my real question is not so much about
> technology but the scenario.
>
> Is this a scenario that is being considered?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Barrett [mailto:dbarrett at quinthar.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:43 PM
> To: Sean Olson; 'Henry Sinnreich'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Matthew Kaufman';
> slavitch at gmail.com
> Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; 'Kundan Singh'
> Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] Fwd: what's wrong with DNS?
>
> If they're in the same room, why do they need VoIP?  The range of wifi
> isn't
> much wider than the range of the spoken voice.
>
> Even if they did somehow have wifi but not voice range, mDNS (as Matthew
> has
> repeatedly pointed out) is exactly suited for this problem.  If they want
> VoIP, they'll probably also want file transfers, IM, and all the other
> accoutrements of internet life.  Why would we have one solution for VoIP,
> and use something totally different for everything else?
>
> Why not just make mDNS really easy to use, and then use that for these
> fringe VoIP cases?
>
> -david
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sean Olson [mailto:seanol at exchange.microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:36 PM
> > To: David Barrett; 'Henry Sinnreich'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Matthew Kaufman';
> > slavitch at gmail.com
> > Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; 'Kundan Singh'
> > Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] Fwd: what's wrong with DNS?
> >
> > It would be nice to support an ad-hoc WiFi network among peers and use
> > P2PSIP for voice, chat, etc. This is a scenario where DNS does not exist
> > necessarily and it is actually fairly common.  Take for example, a set
> of
> > consultants working on site with a customer. They probably don't have
> > direct access to the customer's network and maybe not to the broader
> > Internet either. They will however likely have WiFi and be able to setup
> a
> > small ad-hoc network amongst themselves.
> >
> > Is this scenario out-of-scope for this WG?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu [mailto:p2p-sip-
> > bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of David Barrett
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:30 PM
> > To: 'Henry Sinnreich'; 'Brian Rosen'; 'Matthew Kaufman';
> > slavitch at gmail.com
> > Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; 'Kundan Singh'
> > Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Fwd: what's wrong with DNS?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:hsinnrei at adobe.com]
> > > Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] Fwd: what's wrong with DNS?
> > >
> > > BTW: Existing P2P traffic is independent of the DNS and it dominates
> the
> > > Internet traffic. Numbers between 60% and 80% have been published.
> >
> > I apologize, but I think that's just simply false and misleading.
> >
> > First, virtually all of that traffic is file-sharing traffic designed to
> > preserve anonymity, which is the direct opposite of our problem.  Using
> > that
> > as justification to keep our system "clean" of DNS is a red herring.
> >
> > But even ignoring that, most of that traffic is Bittorrent, which *does*
> > use
> > DNS not only for search (to find torrents on btjunkie.org and so forth),
> > but
> > to find peers (to contact the tracker).
> >
> > At the end of the day, DNS is a fundamental part of the internet, used
> by
> > virtually very user not only ever day, but almost every minute.  If DNS
> > went
> > down globally, the vast majority of internet traffic would also slow to
> a
> > stop (web, email, bittorrent, etc).  There would be a few survivors --
> > Skype
> > with its hard-coded IPs would persevere, along with eDonkey, Kazaa and
> > other
> > anonymous or totally closed/private services, but about everything else
> > would grind to a halt.  Planning on how to keep working without DNS is
> > like
> > planning on how to work without power -- you just don't.  If DNS goes
> > down,
> > we have bigger problems to worry about.
> >
> > We certainly *can* reinvent the wheel and figure out how to keep working
> > in
> > this apocalypse scenario, I just don't see why we should bother.
> >
> > -david
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2p-sip mailing list
> > p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip