Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

If it's optional, would it mean that the upper layer has to be aware  
of its existence, possibly re-running ICE on ORCHIDs?

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.

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