[p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP

[philip_matthews at magma.ca (Philip Matthews)]

Henry:

Eric Cooper and I have spent quite a bit of time recently working on  
ICE to make sure it is suitable for P2PSIP systems.

Back in April, when we first looked at ICE, it worked well when one  
peer was behind a NAT and the other had a public IP address, but was  
somewhat inefficient due to duplicated checks when both endpoints  
were behind (separate) NATs. We published a draft just before the  
Montreal meeting that proposed changes to the state machine to  
eliminate that problem (draft-matthews-mmusic-ice-eliminating- 
duplicates-00), and have since collaborated with Jonathan on this  
issue so that the current version of ICE (ICE-10) handles this case  
much better.

At present, I don't believe that any changes are required to ICE-UDP  
itself to make it more suitable for P2PSIP systems. (I haven't looked  
at ICE-TCP in detail yet). The only questions now are around how one  
uses ICE in a P2PSIP network, and here at Avaya we are currently  
investigating this issue, building on our proposals in draft-matthews- 
p2psip-nats-and-overlays-00.

- Philip


On 22-Sep-06, at 10:13 , Henry Sinnreich wrote:

> This may not fit into the charter discussion, but joining Michael  
> Slavitch, I would be interested if any or what modifications ICE  
> would be required for P2P systems, where most peers reside behind a  
> NAT.
>
>
>
> Any opinions? Jonathan?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Henry
>
>
>
> From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu [mailto:p2p-sip- 
> bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Slavitch
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 9:45 AM
> To: Roy, Radhika R.
> Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; David A. Bryan
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP
>
>
>
> It is certainly not a nonsense problem outside of some rare circles  
> as nearly all consumer and business networks fall behind NATs.  
> Without NAT crossing P2PSIP is useless. I agree that in a  
> deterministic system a perfect solution is required.
>
>
>
> That is why deterministic systems are always so brittle. The world  
> is a messy fractal place.
>
>
>
> By definition P2PSIP will not be deterministic so a perfect  
> solution is not only unnecessary, it is not desirable if the cost  
> of complexity exceeds the apparent benefit.
>
>
>
> The solutions that exist are statistical and fractal, not perfect  
> and deterministic. Skype is living proof of a broadly used  
> implementation that shows that the problem is solved in a matter  
> that meets the requirements for P2P systems.  Since all P2P systems  
> share a common fractal nature a fractal solution is perfectly  
> suited to the domain.
>
>
>
> For all the criticism of ICE, and I've done my fair share, it is  
> getting simple enough to implement from the draft to be expressed  
> in BNF notation. It is now fairly easy to build ICE into a finite  
> state machine, as ICE now describes a completion mechanism where  
> the protocol is complete. That encourages  interoperability from  
> the start.
>
>
>
> Any inadequacies that remain result from the fact that client- 
> server SIP is the only official user of the protocol.  These are  
> minor issues that can only be addressed by MMUSIC once we have a  
> P2PSIP WG that can request changes.  That is a diplomatic problem,  
> not an engineering problem, if the underlying protocol in ICE can  
> meet base P2PSIP requirements.  That is why WG chairs are chosen  
> carefully.
>
>
>
> Regarding unsolved problems:  If the underlying system is fractal  
> then a statistical solution with a high probability of success  
> meets the requirements for the system. This is true for all fractal  
> systems.   The only issue is determining the probability of success  
> of different solutions and either choosing one that meets the  
> circumstances at hand or modifying another to make it an  
> appropriate choice.
>
>
>
> I further argue that the fractal nature of ICE is far more suited  
> to the fractal P2P world than it is to the assumed-deterministic  
> IMS/CS model. It may be not ever be solved perfectly enough for IMS  
> but for self-organizing P2PSIP it won't have to be perfect as the  
> nature of a self-organizing systems is to work around their own  
> shortcomings.   P2PSIP will be rugged enough such that perfect  
> solutions are not needed.  If the other working groups are failing  
> it may be because the systems they are building towards may be  
> broken and brittle and not rugged enough to tolerate statistical  
> solutions. Given the talent at hand that will certainly not be the  
> case with P2PSIP.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
> On 9/21/06, Roy, Radhika R. <RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com> wrote:
>
> M:
>
> The ONLY reason is this: It is an unsolvable problem.
>
> All IETF WGs have been trying, and have been failing successully!!!
>
> The word UNFORTUNATE is there to discourage for spending too much  
> time for
> this technically nonsense problem. That is, p2p-SIP may not be even  
> p2p-SIP
> WG anymore at the end of the solution - all fear is this: It might  
> make
> p2p-SIP NAT crossing solution as non-p2p-SIP NAT crossing protocol.
>
> I hope I would be  be wrong! Who knows what is coming out of by SIP,
> SIPPING, NSIS, IPSEC, DIAMETER, and others almost after 6-10  
> years!  Now,
> MMUSIC has turned their attention to ICE-xxxxxx versions.
>
> Let us wait for ICE (versions # infinite) to see whether it could  
> be used
> for p2p-SP!!! How about this?
>
> RRR
>
> _____
>
> From: Michael Slavitch [mailto: slavitch at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thu 9/21/2006 2:32 PM
> To: Roy, Radhika R.
> Cc: David A. Bryan; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP
>
>
> The "NAT is evil" argument is a matter of faith and belief, a moral
> statement that has no place in a protocol working group charter.
> Engineering solutions emerge from the judicious study of discernible
> reality. NAT exists, therefore it must be dealt with. Period.
> >From an engineering standpoint, it creates problems that need to  
> be solved
> with solutions that reflect the facts on the ground.
>
> The P2PSIP Working Group must be part of the reality-based  
> community, rather
> than part of an ideological community, therefore the working group  
> charter
> must distinguish consensus external reality from ideologically created
> reality if the working group is to be at all successful.  There is  
> ample
> evidence that creating one's own reality despite evidence to the  
> contrary
> results in failure.
>
> Given that, the word "unfortunate" has no place in an engineering  
> document.
> By definition it must be struck.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
>
>
>
> On 9/21/06, Roy, Radhika R. RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com
> <mailto:RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com>  wrote:
>
> Mike and all:
>
> I am commenting on NATs.
>
> >From IETF point of view, the use of NATs as it is done these days is
> "unfortunate."
>
> Let us see what had been the history of NAT standardization in the  
> IETF?
>
> The IETF charter had been to help the "scarcity" of IPv4 addresses  
> (before
> IPv6 even been proposed). It was hoped that, by the time IPv6 is
> standardized, there is will be no more requirements of NATs to  
> provide more
> address spaces.
>
> Now, people have forgot the original usage of NATs. People are  
> using NATs as
> a part of "security" for hiding the configurations behind NATs. It is
> completely an "illusion" to be happy to know that people are  
> "secured" by
> using NATs. It is still going on in a mass scale throughout the  
> world, and
> no one knows when this will be stopped.
>
> Should the purpose of the NAT standardization be "SECURITY" or  
> "TOPOLOGY
> HIDING in the name of security," IETF would NEVER standardized NATs  
> for
> these purposes. The rest is history!!!
>
> So, it is UNFORTUNATE so far the MIS-use of NATs is concerned  
> because NATs
> are not needed anymore due to shortage of IPv4 addresses or NATs  
> cannot
> provide security through hiding configurations.
>
> Therefore, the draft charter is CORRECT in this context to use the  
> word
> "UNFORTUNATE."
>
> Best regards,
> Radhika
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-sip mailing list
> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20060922/4111d22f/attachment-0001.html