[P2PSIP] Re: Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04

[Dean Willis <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 7, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Willekens, Marc wrote:

> Hi Dean and other draft authors;
>
> Some comments to your draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-willis-p2psip- 
> concepts-04.txt
>

Thanks. Actually, Phillip did the editing on this revision, so he  
deserves the credit.

> 1. General remark
> Nice rework of this version! The high level description now  
> indicates the scope of the P2PSIP which is not restricted to the  
> typical SIP registrar functionality. Maybe, it's better to indicate  
> this also in the abstract section which still indicates a more  
> restrictive scope.
>

Reasonable.

>
> 2. Specific remarks
> [Page 4], 2 High Level Description, §5
> "The distributed database may need to store information about  
> services."
> Shouldn't this be extended with the resources provided for these  
> services? I can assume not all nodes will have the same kind of  
> processing power, memory and transport bandwidth. This information  
> is required to allow an optimal spreading of the information in the  
> p2p overlay network. The distribution algorithm has to take this  
> information into account.

That sounds like it could get very, very complicated.


>
> [Page 4], 2 High Level Description, §6
> Some discussion about the name for P2PSIP-peer and P2PSIP client:
> The client gives the impression of a client/server concept which is  
> in contradiction with the distributed p2p model. Of course, a  
> client/server access architecture can be used to access the p2p  
> network, but then, it's maybe better to talk about a normal SIP  
> client because the P2PSIP overlay network is in fact unknown and  
> invisible to the user.
> When the scope is p2p and having a client which is not providing  
> the resources in an active way to the p2p network, but when it is  
> however making use of p2p functionality to get and put information  
> in the overlay network, then we can start thinking about  
> differentiating between active P2PSIP peers and passive P2PSIP peers.
>

I'm thinking of calling them P2PSIP-folpar and P2PSIP-thringbat  
(apologies if those words actually mean something in your language,  
and bonus points if its offensive -- I thought I just made them up),  
since they're apparently very hard to name meaningfully.

P2PSIP active-peer and P2PSIP passive-peer would perhaps also be  
reasonable names. Or maybe "monkey" and "sloth".

> [Page 5], 2 High Level Description, §10
> I agree to the extension to different address spaces. I think it's  
> a mandatory requirement to allow the p2p overlay network on a world- 
> wide scale basis over different domain spaces. If it's bound to a  
> specific address space only, then it are the end-users contributing  
> to network resources without having a real additional benefit out  
> of it. It only solves the problem of the domain owner to reduce its  
> own OPEX and CAPEX by moving this towards the end-user.
> However, when it works over different address spaces (domains),  
> then a world-wide service provider can use the p2p concept in his  
> own overlay network in a more optimal way and distribute the data  
> in function of the location where it is needed the most.

Yes, we agree this is a very important point.

>
> [Page 13], 5.2 Using the distributed database, §1
> Why have you taken out the examples from the -03 version?  In  
> version 03, it was indicated who will setup the actual session  
> after finding the location from the distributed database. For that  
> version 03, I have the remark of one additional case which can also  
> be considered, i.e. in §1.4.2, (P2PSIP client contacts P2PSIP  
> Peer), the UA client C is setting up the session. The additional  
> case could be the setup of the session by the Peer Q. In that way,  
> the "passive" peer can take advantage of its "active" peer part in  
> the network to execute the SIP invite protocol.
>

Having slept since then, I don't recall. Phillip?

>
> [Page 21], 6 Additional questions
> The document indicates the use of a p2p network over different  
> address spaces. However, there can still be many different separate  
> p2p networks. Don't we have to think about inter-p2p domain  
> communication? Can a user belong to different p2p overlay networks  
> at the same time? What's the influence on very big p2p networks  
> when end-users have a very dynamic behavior for enrolment and  
> inserting their peer node in the network? What's the practical  
> limit for the amount of peers? Does it really scale world-wide or  
> do we have to think about smaller p2p networks interconnected with  
> each other?
>

Currently we presume that inter-overlay communications is done using  
conventional SIP. This keeps us from having to think about these  
potentially very complicated issues for a while.

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