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

From: lists at bulukucing.org (Benny Prijono)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:56:29 +0000

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