Re: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

[Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>]

Just confirming that Philip's understanding matches mine - we have descriptive text dating from the days where several proposals were for new SIP methods, new SIP headers, or some combination of the two, and not as much descriptive text that was written after we (appear to have) agreed that SIP would not be the peer protocol.

It seems to me there are things that we knew when the peer protocol was based on SIP - for a trivial example, what level of a protocol stack is responsible for retransmission? SIP had its own timers to support UDP operation, so naturally we would use those - and we haven't thought through (on-list) what the corresponding retransmission characteristics of a non-SIP peer protocol should be.

There are other, similar questions ("do we need a hop count in the peer protocol?"). Maybe everyone on this list except me knows the answers, but they aren't written down as working group consensus. 

I can understand why Gengyu is confused, because I am, too.

Thanks,

Spencer

p.s. I am reminded of the Tony Hoare quote, "I don't know what the programming language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know it will be called Fortran". I hope we don't get to the point where we don't know what the peer protocol will look like, but we know it will be called "X" (for "X", substitute your favorite candidate proposal).
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Philip Matthews 
  To: Wei Gengyu 
  Cc: Henry Sinnreich ; P2PSIP Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons


  It is true that the definition of "p2p layer" has been vague.
  This reflects the uncertainty in the WG about how we want to structure our work.


  When draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00 was written, it was not yet clear that the WG was going to split SIP from the p2p layer. Hence the use of that term in the draft.


  However, I think many people these days use "p2p layer" as roughly a synonym for "Peer Protocol". 


  - Philip


  On 16-Dec-07, at 21:58 , Wei Gengyu wrote:


    Henry,
    Â  
    I am very appreciated your comments. And no new questions about this thread.
    Â 
    But I hope to get hints on some already raised questions. 
    Would you please help me clarify that?
    Â 
    What is p2p layer? What do you mean "p2p layer"?
    Â 
    In "draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00.",we can see 'p2p-layers' 
    that including IPv4 or IPv6, UDPv4 or UDPv6?, HIP or ESP, TCP or UDP, and distributed database. 
    The 'p2p layers'contain five layers. 
    Â 
    I need to know the difference between "p2p layer" and 'p2p layers'.
    So, I shall see where you put HIP under p2p layer.
    Â 
    In "draft-hautakorpi-p2psip-with-hip-01.txt", there are four suggestions in protocol layer scheme.
    Only (a) of Figure 3 contains HIP, but HIP is set on top of Peer protocol.
    whist there is no words of "p2p layer", it seems that Peer protocol should at that layer.
    Â 
    Refer to  "draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04 - Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP",
    "2.  High Level Description
    Â 
    Â Â  A P2PSIP Overlay is a collection of nodes organized in a peer-to-peer
    Â Â  fashion for the purpose of enabling real-time communication using the
       Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).  Collectively, the nodes in the
    Â Â  overlay provide a distributed implementation of the location service
    Â Â  [RFC3261] for mapping Addresses of Record (AoRs) to Contact URIs.
    Â Â  They also provide a transport service by which SIP messages can be
    Â Â  transported between any two nodes in the overlay.
    Â 
    Â Â  A P2PSIP Overlay consists of one or more nodes called P2PSIP Peers.
    Â Â  The peers in the overlay collectively run a distributed database
       algorithm.  This distributed database algorithm allows data to be
       stored on peers and retrieved in an efficient manner.  It may also
    Â Â  ensure that a copy of a data item is stored on more than one peer, so
    Â Â  that the loss of a peer does not result in the loss of the data item
       to the overlay.   "
    Â 
    Unforunately, there is no explicit definition of "p2p layer"Â in the I-D
    although so many people say "p2p layer" in this mailing list.
    Â 
    Even it seems to be a silly quetion, "p2p layer" is still a vague concept when people say it.
    So, I think that WG needs to make this basic definition clear. 
    Â 
    Best regards,
    Â 
    Gengyu 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Henry Sinnreich 
      To: Wei Gengyu ; P2PSIP Mailing List 
      Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:21 AM
      Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons


      > My problem is when HIP is used at the application layer, 

      > or using the same algorithm to generate Peer ID. 

      Â 

      HIP runs below the application layer and also below the p2p layer. 

      HI is different from the p2p nodeID or application layer (such as SIP) identifiers, such as AoR. Â 

      Â 

      Henry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: Wei Gengyu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
      Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 5:25 AM
      To: P2PSIP Mailing List
      Subject: Fw: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

      Â 

      Â 

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: Wei Gengyu 

      To: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; Philip Matthews 

      Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List 

      Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:25 AM

      Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Re: HIP pros and cons

      Â 

      Jeff,Spencer, and Philip, 

      Â 

      First, thank you all for your correction.

      Â 

      HIP might work well as RFC4423 defined.

      Â 

      My problem is when HIP is used at the application layer, 

      or using the same algorithm to generate Peer ID. 

      Â 

      If HIP-like algorithm is used in the overlay while HIP is used between network layer and transport layer,

      the Peer ID will share the same name space with Host ID.

      For rfc4423, when a node have multiple Host IDs, they only cost memory spaces a little.

      If one host are permited to have multiple Peer IDs that happen to belong to one overlay, 

      it would incur potential risks to the P2PSIP overlay.

      Â 

      And it seems not be capable to tackle this case in RVS of HIP. 

      Is there something wrong?

      Â 

      Regars,

      Â 

      Gengyu

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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

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