Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP

[Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei at adobe.com>]

Title: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP

One way to think about P2P SIP is a Skype-like service platform based on open standards.
AKA ‘Skype envy’  :-)

Any other applications for P2P SIP?

P2P has however a very large spectrum of other (non-SIP) applications that can be found in various tutorials.

Henry


On 6/26/08 3:27 PM, "Sukanta ganguly" <sganguly at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>    I was wanting to ask you folks this question about the application of P2P SIP from your views. I have been following this email trail and since many of you are from the industry I wanted to understand a little from your perspective, the potential applications of P2P SIP. I would really appreciate if you people share their views and understanding here. 
>
> Thanks
> SG
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei at adobe.com>
> To: Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com>; Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo at ericsson.com>
> Cc: Ari at core3.amsl.com; jonathan at vidyo.com; P2PSIP WG <p2psip at ietf.org>; sa2086 at columbia.edu
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:35:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP
>
> Dean,
>
> Yes to all your questions.
>
> Henry
>
>
> On 6/26/08 10:26 AM, "Dean Willis" <dean.willis at softarmor.com> wrote:
>
> > 
> > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Henry,
> >> 
> >>> Yes, I know, developing HIP code looks like opening a whole new can
> >>> of
> >>> worms, but nothing compares to what we are looking at now when
> >>> trying to
> >>> traverse NAT, support mobility, multihoming, etc. for each
> >>> application
> >>> protocol and their various flavors separately.
> >> 
> >> yes, that is what HIP is about (i.e., implementing those functions
> >> at a lower layer so that they do not have to be redesigned by every
> >> single application-layer protocol).
> >> 
> > 
> > This asks the question "Why don't we believe in HIP in this role?"
> > 
> > Is it because we've seen HIP struggling to advance for many years and
> > think we can move more quickly?
> > 
> > Is it because we think the IETF's immune system will suppress HIP but
> > that application-level work can move through?
> > 
> > Is it because we think that doing this stuff at the HIP level requires
> > widespread OS and IP stack changes, but that we can deploy application-
> > level solutions without it?
> > 
> > Is it because we think that if HIP solves the problems, then there
> > will be no fun work left to do on applications?
> > 
> > Or is there something else?
> > 
> > There must be some reason, as I would think that if people really
> > believed in HIP that the entire resources of the IETF would be bent
> > towards getting it wrapped up and ready to go, since solving these
> > problems again and again for every different application makes no more
> > sense than would reinventing IP for every application.
> > 
> > --
> > Dean
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>
>  



_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip