Subject: [p2p-sip] Where are we "getting wrapped around the DNS axle"

From: warlock at media.mit.edu (Jacky Mallett)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:14:46 -0500

>
> The application decides when wrong the credential-provider is, not  
> the pipe.  Where is a network provider in this space?  Where could  
> a network provider be in this space?   DNS is not even wrong. It is  
> not relevant, because the network is a pipe but nothing else.
>
The problem with this line of reasoning is that a network is not a  
pipe.  That's the piece of cable from the back of your computer. The  
network is a system. And in the P2PSIP case, the problem is that that  
system is also a network.

I think there's a misunderstanding underlying some of these exchanges  
as to exactly what a peer-to-peer system is, and what a network is,  
and why that matters. I understand that you're seeing a network just  
as the physical system that carries your packets, and that is correct  
at one level. However, once any distributed communicating system  
becomes large enough it takes on what can loosely be described as  
network properties, if we understand network in this sense of a  
distributed communicating system whose application is the  
communication of packets - such as the Internet, and not just the  
physical hardware.

If your device, whatever it is, has enough capacity to hold the  
addresses of every single other device in your application, then this  
doesn't matter. If there is a single server that is large enough to  
hold every other device's address then it doesn't matter (at least in  
terms of network considerations, single point of failure, phone  
company fascism problms etc. still apply, obviously.)

Any communicating system where that is no longer the case, be it the  
postal system, the phone book, DNS,  Skype, or whatever has to solve  
a routing and lookup problem within itself that is independent of the  
underlying physical network. There is no way round this, the  
underlying mathematics of these systems is rather firm on that point.

> In each overlay, yes. See above three times.  That is an  
> application-level responsibility.  Not a network responsibility.  
> The network is a pipe.

Yes, it is an application responsibility - but the application has  
just taken on important attributes of what is commonly called a  
network. A network is not a pipe. A network  is an emergent effect of  
a set of communication protocols between autonomously functioning nodes.

> Again:  DNS doesn't exist in application namespaces.  It  time to  
> decouple the namespace provider from the service.  A network  
> service provider can't keep up with the application space, and  
> doesn't want to in the same way that the telecom provider won't  
> keep up with the telecommunications boom.

I think it's arguable that DNS actually is decoupled from the  
service, if by service you mean the physical pipe.

Let me suggest that whether or not an application chooses to  
implement its own namespace, or uses one conveniently provided by a  
well established existing system is up to the application. But that  
for any system that is sufficiently large, the resulting solution  
will look a lot like DNS. Either you are below the group size limit,  
where all nodes can have direct knowledge of each other, (or through  
a central server), or you're above it where they can't. Once you're  
above it, DNS or something very like it, is the only solution - and  
again, this is dictated by the underlying topological and  
communication constraints on the system. So why reinvent the wheel here?

> In P2P the namespace comes from the application, not the network.   
> The network is a pipe.  The provider does not exist apart from that  
> pipe.

The piece of cable that leads from your desktop to the wall jack is a  
pipe. The network itself is rather more complex than that. Peer to  
Peer systems are themselves networks built on top of networks. The  
fact that one is physical, and the other virtual doesn't change the  
mathematics of the resulting system. It does increase the size, and  
limits at which certain phenomena become apparent, and it also causes  
those of us who understand the underlying administrative traffic  
implications to be alternately amused and appalled, but it doesn't  
change the fact that they exist.

> My electric utility sells me electrons, it doesn't decide on what  
> they are used for.  In P2PSIP the network is the network but  
> nothing more.

This discussion isn't really about the underlying system providing  
you with packets, it's about those aspects of P2PSIP implementation  
where it takes on network properties, and whether or not services  
that have been developed to allow the underlying network to function  
can help solve those problems efficiently or not. There's a large  
network of power stations and cables behind delivering your electrons  
too, and i rather suspect if i took the network out of that equation,  
you might well find yourself strangely deficient of power, even  
though nothing had actually changed with the supply of electrons.

...Jacky

On 12/4/06, Michael Haberler <mah at inode.at> wrote:
Matthew Kaufman schrieb:
 > I would argue that doing a DNS-protocol lookup given the fixed IP  
addresses
 > of the canonical root DNS servers (and, if you like, the fixed IP  
addresses
 > of some non-traditional root DNS servers) is *exactly the same* as  
doing a
 > DHT-protocol lookup given the fixed IP addresses of some seed  
nodes for the
 > DHT.
Amen.

I too fail to understand the conceptual and political difference between
"set of supernodes" and "set of root servers" IP addresses - both define
the entry point into a name resolution space.

It's shifting bottlenecks (if the DNS is viewed as such) - including the
downstream politics around the "single supernode set".

-Michael

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20061204/ced1d745/attachment-0001.html

---

From: hsinnrei at adobe.com (Henry Sinnreich)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:40:16 -0800

pipe.  

>>The application decides when wrong the credential-provider is, not the
pipe. 

For some the "stupid Internet" is a pipe. It knows only UDP and TCP over
IP. This is enough for any p2p application level overlays.

For other there is the "Intelligent network"; such as VoIP networks with
network resident applications.

For what it's worth, p2p traffic dominates the Internet though the
overlays have various owners that are not service providers using the
same business models that current providers have nor do they require
DNS. As Skype has shown, one can be the leading voice/video, IM and
presence provider without DNS.

These reasonings have proven to be irreconcilable. 

This may also explain the meaning of this discussion trail.

Thanks, Henry 

________________________________

From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Jacky Mallett
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:15 PM
To: P2P-SIP
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Where are we "getting wrapped around the DNS
axle"

	The application decides when wrong the credential-provider is,
not the pipe.  Where is a network provider in this space?  Where could a
network provider be in this space?   DNS is not even wrong. It is not
relevant, because the network is a pipe but nothing else.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that a network is not a pipe.
That's the piece of cable from the back of your computer. The network is
a system. And in the P2PSIP case, the problem is that that system is
also a network. 

I think there's a misunderstanding underlying some of these exchanges as
to exactly what a peer-to-peer system is, and what a network is, and why
that matters. I understand that you're seeing a network just as the
physical system that carries your packets, and that is correct at one
level. However, once any distributed communicating system becomes large
enough it takes on what can loosely be described as network properties,
if we understand network in this sense of a distributed communicating
system whose application is the communication of packets - such as the
Internet, and not just the physical hardware.

If your device, whatever it is, has enough capacity to hold the
addresses of every single other device in your application, then this
doesn't matter. If there is a single server that is large enough to hold
every other device's address then it doesn't matter (at least in terms
of network considerations, single point of failure, phone company
fascism problms etc. still apply, obviously.)

Any communicating system where that is no longer the case, be it the
postal system, the phone book, DNS,  Skype, or whatever has to solve a
routing and lookup problem within itself that is independent of the
underlying physical network. There is no way round this, the underlying
mathematics of these systems is rather firm on that point.  

	In each overlay, yes. See above three times.  That is an
application-level responsibility.  Not a network responsibility. The
network is a pipe.

Yes, it is an application responsibility - but the application has just
taken on important attributes of what is commonly called a network. A
network is not a pipe. A network  is an emergent effect of a set of
communication protocols between autonomously functioning nodes.

	Again:  DNS doesn't exist in application namespaces.  It  time
to decouple the namespace provider from the service.  A network service
provider can't keep up with the application space, and doesn't want to
in the same way that the telecom provider won't keep up with the
telecommunications boom.

I think it's arguable that DNS actually is decoupled from the service,
if by service you mean the physical pipe.

Let me suggest that whether or not an application chooses to implement
its own namespace, or uses one conveniently provided by a well
established existing system is up to the application. But that for any
system that is sufficiently large, the resulting solution will look a
lot like DNS. Either you are below the group size limit, where all nodes
can have direct knowledge of each other, (or through a central server),
or you're above it where they can't. Once you're above it, DNS or
something very like it, is the only solution - and again, this is
dictated by the underlying topological and communication constraints on
the system. So why reinvent the wheel here? 

	In P2P the namespace comes from the application, not the
network.  The network is a pipe.  The provider does not exist apart from
that pipe.

The piece of cable that leads from your desktop to the wall jack is a
pipe. The network itself is rather more complex than that. Peer to Peer
systems are themselves networks built on top of networks. The fact that
one is physical, and the other virtual doesn't change the mathematics of
the resulting system. It does increase the size, and limits at which
certain phenomena become apparent, and it also causes those of us who
understand the underlying administrative traffic implications to be
alternately amused and appalled, but it doesn't change the fact that
they exist.

	My electric utility sells me electrons, it doesn't decide on
what they are used for.  In P2PSIP the network is the network but
nothing more.

This discussion isn't really about the underlying system providing you
with packets, it's about those aspects of P2PSIP implementation where it
takes on network properties, and whether or not services that have been
developed to allow the underlying network to function can help solve
those problems efficiently or not. There's a large network of power
stations and cables behind delivering your electrons too, and i rather
suspect if i took the network out of that equation, you might well find
yourself strangely deficient of power, even though nothing had actually
changed with the supply of electrons. 

...Jacky

 

On 12/4/06, Michael Haberler <mah at inode.at <mailto:mah at inode.at> >
wrote:

addresses 

addresses

doing a

> DHT-protocol lookup given the fixed IP addresses of some seed nodes
for the 

Amen.

 

-Michael

p2p-sip mailing list

https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
<https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip> 

p2p-sip mailing list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20061204/c9b16c59/attachment-0001.html

---

From: mah at inode.at (Michael Haberler)
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:13:34 +0100

Henry Sinnreich schrieb:
>
> As Skype has shown, one can be the leading voice/video, IM and
yeah, right - at the minor cost of a set of *hardcoded* IP addresses in
the most obfuscated  code known to mankind (that's "proprietary" for the
rest of us)

you can't be seriously suggesting that as an engineering choice

-Michael

---

From: dbarrett at quinthar.com (David Barrett)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:41:45 -0800

Not to mention that said hard-coded IP address goes to an uber-centralized
directory service.

Likewise, all of the P2P systems that truly avoid DNS also truly avoid
identity altogether, and thus aren't valid models for VoIP.

-david 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu [mailto:p2p-sip-
> bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Haberler
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 3:14 PM
> To: Henry Sinnreich
> Cc: P2P-SIP
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Where are we "getting wrapped around the DNS axle"
> 
> Henry Sinnreich schrieb:
> >

---

From: huang-ming.pan at comcast.net (Peter Pan)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:55:11 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Haberler" <mah at inode.at>
To: "Henry Sinnreich" <hsinnrei at adobe.com>
> you can't be seriously suggesting that as an engineering choice

How many engineers are not seriously suggesting their bosses to use
proprietary MS Windows and Oracle database in their companies?

What is wrong with proprietary stuff? When it is widely accepted, it becomes
the standard. Ask famous device vendors such as Netgear/Linksys/Dlink/Accton
why they recognize Skype as "a standard".

What is wrong with hardcoded ip addresses to avoid dependency on p2pless
stuff?

Peter

---

From: huang-ming.pan at comcast.net (Peter Pan)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:04:16 -0800

IMO, sticking to URL-formatted identities is instead an obstacle for p2p
VoIP network and traditional PSTN to converge, because that convergency
needs centralized ENUM system (DNS-based!!).

Words "centralized" and "p2p voip" here apparently are contridictory.

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Barrett" <dbarrett at quinthar.com>
To: "'Michael Haberler'" <mah at inode.at>; "'Henry Sinnreich'"
<hsinnrei at adobe.com>
Cc: "'P2P-SIP'" <p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Where are we "getting wrapped around the DNS axle"

axle"

---

From: warlock at media.mit.edu (Jacky Mallett)
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:10:33 -0500

On Dec 4, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:

> not the pipe.
> For some the ?stupid Internet? is a pipe. It knows only UDP and TCP  
> over IP. This is enough for any p2p application level overlays.

As i said, it depends on what level of abstraction you are looking at  
the system, and this is way above the issue of what protocol you are  
using.  When i send my packets i don't need to worry about the design  
of the network, because its been designed, so that i more or less  
don't have to. When i build any large distributed application, i do  
have to worry about network design - within my application - because  
the system i am building now has network attributes.

> For other there is the ?Intelligent network?; such as VoIP networks  
> with network resident applications.
this is what i referred to as a distributed communicating systems.  
The Internet that provides you with your UDP/TCP pipe is one such,  
VoIP networks are another, DNS in and of itself is another, so for  
that matter is the postal system.
> For what it?s worth, p2p traffic dominates the Internet though the  
> overlays have various owners that are not service providers using  
> the same business models that current providers have nor do they  
> require DNS. As Skype has shown, one can be the leading voice/ 
> video, IM and presence provider without DNS.
My point wasn't that you absolutely need DNS, my point, and that of  
others here, was that you need something that looks awfully like it,  
so why not use it in the first place. Skype has its own internal  
version of DNS, which nobody else can use. I thought we were  
advocating open systems here?

A better analogy than references to skype  is that when i take my  
parcel to UPS, i don't have to use a special UPS only addressing  
scheme - i can use the same one the post office uses - UPS then  
provides a different delivery mechanism. In this sense, DNS is  
providing a shared way of sorting out the addressing scheme, what  
then gets delivered and how it gets there is the distributed  
applications problem.

...jacky

> bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Jacky Mallett
> pipe.  That's the piece of cable from the back of your computer.  
> The network is a system. And in the P2PSIP case, the problem is  
> that that system is also a network.
>
>
>
> I think there's a misunderstanding underlying some of these  
> exchanges as to exactly what a peer-to-peer system is, and what a  
> network is, and why that matters. I understand that you're seeing a  
> network just as the physical system that carries your packets, and  
> that is correct at one level. However, once any distributed  
> communicating system becomes large enough it takes on what can  
> loosely be described as network properties, if we understand  
> network in this sense of a distributed communicating system whose  
> application is the communication of packets - such as the Internet,  
> and not just the physical hardware.
>
>
>
> addresses of every single other device in your application, then  
> this doesn't matter. If there is a single server that is large  
> enough to hold every other device's address then it doesn't matter  
> (at least in terms of network considerations, single point of  
> failure, phone company fascism problms etc. still apply, obviously.)
>
>
>
> Any communicating system where that is no longer the case, be it  
> the postal system, the phone book, DNS,  Skype, or whatever has to  
> solve a routing and lookup problem within itself that is  
> independent of the underlying physical network. There is no way  
> round this, the underlying mathematics of these systems is rather  
> firm on that point.
>
>
>
>
>
> network. A network is not a pipe. A network  is an emergent effect  
> of a set of communication protocols between autonomously  
> functioning nodes.
>
>
>
> will look a lot like DNS. Either you are below the group size  
> limit, where all nodes can have direct knowledge of each other, (or  
> through a central server), or you're above it where they can't.  
> Once you're above it, DNS or something very like it, is the only  
> solution - and again, this is dictated by the underlying  
> topological and communication constraints on the system. So why  
> reinvent the wheel here?
>
>
>
>
>
>> The network is a pipe.  The provider does not exist apart from  
>> that pipe.
>
>
> The piece of cable that leads from your desktop to the wall jack is  
> a pipe. The network itself is rather more complex than that. Peer  
> to Peer systems are themselves networks built on top of networks.  
> The fact that one is physical, and the other virtual doesn't change  
> the mathematics of the resulting system. It does increase the size,  
> and limits at which certain phenomena become apparent, and it also  
> causes those of us who understand the underlying administrative  
> traffic implications to be alternately amused and appalled, but it  
> doesn't change the fact that they exist.
>
>
>
> that have been developed to allow the underlying network to  
> function can help solve those problems efficiently or not. There's  
> a large network of power stations and cables behind delivering your  
> electrons too, and i rather suspect if i took the network out of  
> that equation, you might well find yourself strangely deficient of  
> power, even though nothing had actually changed with the supply of  
> electrons.
>
>
>
> ...Jacky
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > of some non-traditional root DNS servers) is *exactly the same*  
> as doing a
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20061204/31c2be3a/attachment-0001.html

---

From: mah at inode.at (Michael Haberler)
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:19:29 +0100

> why they recognize Skype as "a standard".
Nothing. But somehow I got the impression this list is about open
standards, which is why I fail to understand the cheerleading for
closed, obfuscated architectures with centralized authentication.

This looks to me like there's a strange mix of engineering and political
intents at work.
> What is wrong with hardcoded ip addresses to avoid dependency on p2pless
I gave up patching binaries after my Commodore PET exposure and decided
this isnt going to work for me. YMMV.

-Michael

---

From: hsinnrei at adobe.com (Henry Sinnreich)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:19:54 -0800

Michael,

This WG is about P2P SIP _standards_ as you well know :-)

We and you just seem to differ in our approach to use or not use DNS
inside the p2p system. 

Linking different p2p systems may however use DNS or may use another
overlay. 

There is work on hierarchical is done in several countries:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shi-p2psip-hier-arch-00.txt 
and also France Telecom+Polytechnic (I need to find it) on hierarchical
overlays that scale easily to full projected Internet size. My apology
for missing some other references.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Haberler [mailto:mah at inode.at] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:19 AM
To: Peter Pan
Cc: Henry Sinnreich; P2P-SIP
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Where are we "getting wrapped around the DNS
axle"

-Michael