RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

<marcin.matuszewski@nokia.com> Fri, 18 January 2008 20:29 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 1JFxqZ-0005o8-3K; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:29:51 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFxqX-0005o2-8y for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:29:49 -0500
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFxqW-0003ak-70 for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:29:49 -0500
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m0IKTb85020508; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:29:38 +0200
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:29:02 +0200
Received: from esebe102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.217]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:29:02 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:31:41 +0200
Message-ID: <3F18E76823C95E4795181D74BAC7664F05B951F1@esebe102.NOE.Nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D223AE531@namail5.corp.adobe.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
Thread-Index: AchY6/f3hzHbxXFXSd62E76EI/ZxDwAPjfcgADhVDlA=
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> <DD40D2FF-809B-4B1F-B43B-0E8F41ED21DB@quinthar.com> <24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D223AE531@namail5.corp.adobe.com>
From: marcin.matuszewski@nokia.com
To: hsinnrei@adobe.com, dbarrett@quinthar.com, fluffy@cisco.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2008 20:29:02.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[C34D2A90:01C85A10]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78
Cc: 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

>Opinion: This call to urgency can be best met IMHO by using 
>P2PP implemented on 600 nodes on Planet Lab since it meets the 
>criteria of running code, open available free code and large 
>footprint deployment.

I fully agree. Besides Nokia's implementation shows that P2PP can also
work on mobile devices. Some of you who visited Nokia's P2PSIP demo
stand in Las Vegas could see a demo of the P2PP implementation on Nokia
phones. At the stand we were showing how a mobile phone that implements
P2PP can join the Columbia Univ.'s 600 nodes overlay on Planet Lab and
allow users to use basic SIP services. The demo was done in colaboration
with Columbia Univ. 
Everyone who whould like to join the P2PP trial network please send an
email to Salman, Henning or me.
 
Our goal is to specify a protocol based on our implementation
experience. It is very easy to write protocol specifications that are
difficult to implement and therefore have high chances to fail in the
market, what we could see in the past. 

Marcin 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Henry Sinnreich [mailto:hsinnrei@adobe.com] 
>Sent: 17 January, 2008 19:12
>To: David Barrett; Cullen Jennings
>Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
>Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
>
>I fully agree with Dave Barrett and would like to illustrate 
>the pressure to get P2PSIP ASAP to market. For what ti is 
>worth, please look at 
>
>http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MjY4OTgmbnI9O
A_3_3,00.
>html 
>
>The note on the right side specifies this statistic is for the 
>consumer market and enterprise networks may use more SIP based VoIP.
>Clicking the "back" links will show more interesting numbers on P2P.
>
>Opinion: This call to urgency can be best met IMHO by using 
>P2PP implemented on 600 nodes on Planet Lab since it meets the 
>criteria of running code, open available free code and large 
>footprint deployment.
>
>Thanks, Henry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Barrett [mailto:dbarrett@quinthar.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:32 AM
>To: Cullen Jennings
>Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?
>
>
>On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 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.
>
>100% agree.  That's why I like the HIP layer (whether or not it's  
>chartered as I dream):
>- P2PSIP builds a decentralized SIP for a fictional "end-to-end"  
>internet, and then
>- HIP makes that "end-to-end" internet a reality.
>
>This lets us each focus on what we care about, planning to come  
>together in the future.  Granted, if they fail, then we're screwed --  
>we can't deploy in the real world.  But that's the nature of open  
>standards and implementations.  If we don't buy into this ethos and  
>instead feel that the only way to do it "right" is to build a custom  
>stack from top to bottom, then that doesn't bode well for our 
>faith in  
>the IETF.
>
>
>>>  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.
>
>Agreed.  Every call for more extensibility and more support for more  
>plugins just puts another nail in the coffin for a practical, real- 
>world P2PSIP.  I mean, if we can't get *anything* working, why should  
>we expect to get it working *and* extensible?  Let's get it working  
>first, and then worry about extensibility.  In my experience, 
>it's far  
>easier to extend something that exists than something that doesn't.
>
>
>>> 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
>
>Even if that's true, that's not a satisfying answer.  Good design  
>should trump IETF charters.  If HIP or P2PSIP needs rechartering, so  
>be it.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>Agreed, but HIP seems like as good a place as any.
>
>-david
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>P2PSIP mailing list
>P2PSIP@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>

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