Subject: [P2PSIP] Draft: Peer-to-Peer Name Service (P2PNS)

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:55:22 +0100

Dear working group,

I've submitted a draft for a Peer-to-Peer Name Service (P2PNS) which can
be used to resolve AoRs to Contact URIs without using DNS.

The main contribution is on two aspects: One is reusability of the name
service for things like distributed DNS or HIP. The other is security in
a completely decentralized environment (without login severs).

Until it is on the official servers, you can get it from here:

http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-baumgart-p2psip-p2pns-00.txt
http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-baumgart-p2psip-p2pns-00.html

Some additional information about the implementation can be found in
this P2P2007 demo abstract:

http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/OverSimDemo_2007.pdf

Regards,
  Ingmar

-- 
Dipl.-Inform. Ingmar Baumgart
Institut für Telematik, Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
Zirkel 2, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone: +49 721 608 8281, Fax: +49 721 608 6789

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:25:34 -0500

This is pretty cool!  One question:

Though I only read it quick, I didn't see any mention of how it arbitrates
between humans competing for the same name.  I understand that each node
securely generates a unique GUID, but that's not human-readable.  If you and
I both want to be [email-masked] -- meaning, we each want to associate
our data with that name -- how does it determine who "wins"?

-david

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingmar Baumgart [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [P2PSIP] Draft: Peer-to-Peer Name Service (P2PNS)
> 
> Dear working group,
>

---

From: "lichun li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:30:59 +0800

Great! Does the implementation implement all security mechanisms described
in this draft? And have you implemented P2PNS applications other than
P2PSIP?

-- 
Sincerely yours,

Lichun Li
Mobile Life New Media Lab, BUPT
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:11:55 +0100

The P2PNS implementation only implements some of the security mechanisms
(e.g. routing over disjoint paths, DHT data record ownership). Message
authentication is currently not implemented.

The only available P2PNS application is P2PSIP, but support for
distributed DNS is planed.

Regards,
  Ingmar

---

From: "lichun li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:40:53 +0800

I am a little confused about "5.2.1 Two-stage Name Resolution".
I guess the two stages are: 1. resolving P2PName to nodeID in DHT; 2.
resolving P2PName to transport address at the node with the nodeID. Is
that right?
According to concept draft, a peer might be coupled with two or more SIP
entities. So different P2PNames might be mapping to the same nodeID?

-- 
Sincerely yours,

Lichun Li

---

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:28:57 +0100

Yes, in P2PNS several P2PNames could be mapped to the same nodeID.

In case you want to connect several SIP UAs to a single peer, this can
be done in two ways:

1.) There is a single P2PSIP proxy at the peer that forwards invites to
the different UAs. In this case the "Client Protocol" is unmodified SIP.

2.) The UAs register their P2PNames with explicit (UA) IP addresses at
the P2PNS layer. In this case the "Client Protocol" is XML-RPC based
(register/resolve calls).

The first approach is easier to secure, but limited to P2SIP. The second
approach is more general and could e.g. also be used for distributed DNS.

Regards,
  Ingmar

---

From: "Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:17:21 -0500

Inline [RRR]

----- Original Message -----
From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:29
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Draft: Peer-to-Peer Name Service (P2PNS)
To: lichun li <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

> (register/resolve calls).

[RRR] Will it be a subset of the P2PSIP protocol?

> 
> The first approach is easier to secure, but limited to P2SIP. The 
> secondapproach is more general and could e.g. also be used for 
> distributed DNS.
> 
> Regards,
>  Ingmar
>

---

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:08:38 +0100

> [RRR] Will it be a subset of the P2PSIP protocol?

For P2PNS I don't see a direct relationship between the Peer Protocol
(overlay routing and routing table maintenance) and the Client Protocol
(remote access of overlay services).

In my opinion the Peer Protocol should be (or at least be based on) a
generic protocol for key-based routing and data storage (like the P2PP
proposal).

Regards,
  Ingmar

---

From: JiangXingFeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:10:24 +0800

> a completely decentralized environment (without login severs).

In the draft, it is harder for a node to get a Node ID because some puzzles
are set. My concern is: is the Node ID computed off-line or online? If it is
offline, sybil attack does exist. Am I missing something? 

Regards
JiangXingFeng

---

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:43:33 +0100

> offline, sybil attack does exist. Am I missing something? 

In a completely decentralized environment the nodeID in P2PNS is
generated offline. Crypto puzzles are used to make a sybil attack harder
for an ordinary attacker, but especially in small networks a sybil
attack is still feasible.

But in my opinion this is the best you can achieve in without relying on
any trustworthy authorities.

Regards,
  Ingmar