Subject: [P2PSIP] some questions about using HIP in P2PSIP

From: "Jing Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:52:41 +0800

hi all,
  I have a question about hip.
(1)  Do we really need using HIP in P2PSIP? I mean that if we can seperate
the peerID and its location info(such as IP addr) through some Name
Services(e.g. P2PNS), do we need HIP?

(2) What's the essential benifits to introducing HIP in P2PSIP? What's the
essential differences between P2PSIP overlay nodeID and the HITs in HIP?

Regards,

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

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:32 -0700

Jing Chen wrote:

Hi,

(I am not an P2P-SIP expert, but here goes nothing...)

> (1)  Do we really need using HIP in P2PSIP? I mean that if we can 
> seperate the peerID and its location info(such as IP addr) through some 
> Name Services(e.g. P2PNS), do we need HIP?

HIP would be useful in e.g. mobility handling in such a case (to avoid 
breaking phone calls when you move between networks).

> (2) What's the essential benifits to introducing HIP in P2PSIP? What's 
> the essential differences between P2PSIP overlay nodeID and the HITs in HIP?

I don't recall the details of nodeID, but perhaps answer to your 
question is that the HITs are hashes of public keys which makes them 
secure. Authenticated SIP sessions might be a cool thing to have in P2PSIP.
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:12:40 +0300

Hi,

> Name Services(e.g. P2PNS), do we need HIP?

Well, we *can* do P2PSIP without HIP, but HIP would make many things 
easier. After all, HIP is much more than just a realization of the 
ID-locator split. We get, e.g., mobility and multihoming that works with 
registration and also during an active session. Also, HIP provides 
end-to-end secured IPsec connections (if needed; this can also be 
disabled to save CPU resources), Denial of Service attack protection, 
cryptographically secure identities etc.

Finally, since NAT traversal is quite essential for P2PSIP and there are 
ongoing efforts on integrating ICE-like NAT traversal [1] for at least 
two different open-source HIP implementations [2] [3], using HIP can 
simplify implementing the whole P2PSIP quite a bit.

> the essential differences between P2PSIP overlay nodeID and the HITs in HIP?

So, basically, the essential benefit is that you can leave many things 
that are hard to implement for HIP and concentrate on the P2PSIP 
specific things. Some good further reading is e.g., the HIP BONE draft [4].

Cheers,
Ari

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-03.txt
[2] http://hip4inter.net/
[3] http://infrahip.hiit.fi/
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-camarillo-hip-bone-01.txt
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip