Subject: [p2p-sip] Towards Reining In the Scope

From: Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at (Stastny Richard)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:14:34 +0100

>I assumed that "p2p federation" in Dean's email is synonymous with
>"p2p overlay network" (although I just realized that none of the
>drafts mention the federation term).

I think "federation" is not synonymous with "p2p network"

A federation is a group of "p2p networks" having a predefined
peering agreement and policy

>So in that context, we *are* building federations with p2p sip. When
>your p2p node joins a p2p "network", you are joining a particular sip
>p2p federation.

No, IMHO you are joining only a "p2p network", the federations exist
a-priori. 

That of course leaves the question open how ad-hoc "p2p networks"
may join a "federation". Because of predefined policies and agreements
there is nothing like a ad-hoc federation, or?

Richard

________________________________

Von: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu im Auftrag von Benny Prijono
Gesendet: So 15.01.2006 02:56
An: henry at pulver.com
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
Betreff: Re: [p2p-sip] Towards Reining In the Scope

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> I agree with Dean.
>
> Besides, federations are not scalable and smack of cartel behavior, of
> discrimination.
>

Erm, I don't understand.

I assumed that "p2p federation" in Dean's email is synonymous with
"p2p overlay network" (although I just realized that none of the
drafts mention the federation term).

So in that context, we *are* building federations with p2p sip. When
your p2p node joins a p2p "network", you are joining a particular sip
p2p federation.

What I asked was simply to consider that:
1) there is possibility that we may need to accomodate communications
between p2p overlays / federations.
2) there is possibility that there may be overlapping overlays (i.e.
nodes that belong to more than one overlays).

I believe there is a real use case for that.

> Bigcarrier.com will not federate with my home.net.
> They will not even answer my calls.
>

My view is, just because of that, doesn't mean we should throw away
the capability in the protocol level. Just because bigcarrier.com will
not route my IP packet, doesn't mean we don't need IP routing.

-benny

> Thanks, Henry
_______________________________________________
p2p-sip mailing list
p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip