Subject: [p2p-sip] Problem statement for P2P SIP NAT traversal

From: RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com (Roy, Radhika R.)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:26 -0500

Mike:

OK, the question is this: Where do you like see this work should be done?
SIP/SIPPING or P2P-SIP?

Radhika

  _____  

From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Slavitch
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:09 PM
To: Eunsoo Shim
Cc: P2P-SIP
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Problem statement for P2P SIP NAT traversal

'To repeat myself, I strongly believe that interoperability with the client
server SIP is important for P2P SIP.
We are not trying to reinvent SIP. We should not. As far as I remember, the
separation of SIP and the overlay layer was 
supported widely in the P2P SIP ad-hoc meeting in Vancouver. One of the main
advantages of the separation was "no change in SIP
almost or at all".'

I fully agree with this.   The separation of SIP and the overlay is what
makes SIP reuse possible.   The biggest change I foresee in this 
model involves the overloading of names used to identify nodes, agents and
addresses.   In other words,  "words" and "names".

SIP syntax could allow:  DNS name, IPV4, IPV6,  or "P2PNAME".  There are
lots of people working on smart ways to do 'P2PNAME'. 

In our experience if SIP/RTP/SDP allow p2pnames to overload addresses in
descriptions  of entities (much like DNS, but possibly not DNS, perhaps
something else)  then those protocols can continue merrily along.  No more
changes to SIP or SDP needed.  Minor changes that don't break
interoperability. 

Given the nature of these protocols this many not require any changes to the
existing state machines.  
It only adds one additional descriptor to the valid set of possible
descriptors. 

Changes involving syntax are not major, and they are backward compatible.
Changes involving state behavior are major and break things.

In code-speak it becomes a recompile with another accepted data-type, and
some testing, using existing test suites.

It becomes easy.

If  the SIP agenst on top of the overlay uses ICE, great.   

If ICE meets the requirements for the underlying overlay, better. 

Let's find out.

Regards

Michael

-- 
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa, Ontario Canada 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20060313/49a04955/attachment-0001.html