Subject: [P2Prg] About P2Pv6, P2PRG and EMME: overlaps and synergies

From: Luca Caviglione <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:40:22 +0200

Dear All,

We are writing this email for two reasons. On one hand, we would like  
to comment on the charter of the EMME RG (from the perspective of  
possible integrations/overlaps) with the P2PRG, and on the other  
hand, being the authors of the problem statement draft about the  
joint use of P2P and IPv6.

We think that the EMME RG has a quite interesting charter that has  
some interesting features and some possible overlaps with the P2PRG  
charter. Overlaps should not be perceived as a negative thing, and we  
would like to underline that one of the primary goals of P2P  
technologies (in the broader sense of the word P2P) is to restore the  
end-to-end connectivity of the Internet. In addition, many techniques  
to recover the lack of end-to-end connectivity have been developed  
and deployed at the P2P layer (e.g., rendezvous nodes), or at the  
network layer (IPv6 and NAT traversal solutions).

Concerning NAT traversal solutions, S. Guha, P. Francis submitted to  
the P2PRG a paper entitled  “Characterization and Measurement of TCP  
Traversal through NATs and Firewalls", presented it at IMC 2005 (the  
paper is available on-line at: http://nutss.net/pub/imc05- 
tcpnat.pdf ) and it spawned some discussions on our mailing list.

As regards the joint use of P2P and IPv6 (the activity has been  
nicknamed P2Pv6) Bill Yeager and myself, created a “p2prg  
subgroup” (more details here http://homepage.mac.com/cvgl/p2pv6/ 
p2pv6.htm) and prepared a problem statement draft (available here  
http://tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/draft-irtf-p2prg-p2pv6-problem- 
statement-00.txt). The choice of the p2pv6 subgroup has been selected  
since p2prg chairs decided to create “sub projects” to promote  
research and to make p2prg an “umbrella”. Also, IPv6 is designed to  
restore the “end-to-end” transparency of the Internet. As a matter of  
fact, Bill and myself think that p2p and ipv6 have some interesting  
analogies.

Finally, we would like to find out if someone else finds that such  
points of synergy with EMME are beneficial. Should we, for example,  
try to emphasize differences in order to minimize the overlap with  
p2pv6, or establish some possible fruitful cooperation between p2pv6  
and EMME. We also hope that this quick essay about p2prg adds some  
“juice” to the discussion, and proves that the “broad” and “wild”  
nature of p2prg is one of its major strengths.

Best Regards,

Bill and Luca

-------------------------------------------
Ing. Luca Caviglione, PhD
CNIT - Genoa Research Unit
Via Opera Pia 13
16145, Genova
Tel. +39 010 3532202
-------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg