Subject: [P2PSIP] What does "Super" mean

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:22:15 +0100

I want to have a debate and straighten out the usage of Super Peer.  
We keep seeming to agree on the idea that a node that is not behind a  
nat is not what the p2p sip literature meant by super node, then in  
the next set of documentation, we end up using this word again. This  
is going to be horribly confusing the first time we introduce a DHT  
algorithm that uses the word super node in the DHT algorithm.

I want to sort this out and fix our documentation on how we use this  
word. Clearly I would prefer that we did not use the word "Super" to  
mean not behind a NAT but I'm glad to do whatever the group agrees on.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:35:10 -0400

My suggestion: public peer vs. restricted (or private) peer.

On Mar 21, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> We keep seeming to agree on the idea that a node that is not behind  
> a nat is not what the p2p sip literature meant by super node, then  
> in the next set of documentation, we end up using this word again.  
> This is going to be horribly confusing the first time we introduce  
> a DHT algorithm that uses the word super node in the DHT algorithm.
>
> I want to sort this out and fix our documentation on how we use  
> this word. Clearly I would prefer that we did not use the word  
> "Super" to mean not behind a NAT but I'm glad to do whatever the  
> group agrees on.
>

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:38:58 -0700

> Cullen <with my individual hat on>

Totally agree....

-Ekr

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:41:33 +0100

Good suggestion - I like restricted peer. I think "public" is better  
than super but I might prefer "unrestricted".

---

From: "Enrico Marocco" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:44:34 +0100

> My suggestion: public peer vs. restricted (or private) peer.

Agree.  I'd add that the distinguishing property should be the ability
to passively initiate connections, i.e.:

Public peer: can both listen for incoming connections (or messages) and
initiate outgoing ones

Restricted peer: can only initiate outgoing connections (or send
messages or whatever)

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

Ahem.. Sorry, the notice below is not my fault :-(
--------------------------------------------------------------------

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to [email-masked].

        Thank you

                                        www.telecomitalia.it

--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Eric Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:02:08 -0400

Perhaps we should put these terms in the Concepts draft.

Eric.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Enrico Marocco" <[email-masked]>
To: "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "P2PSIP WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] What does "Super" mean

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons 
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the 
message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is 
prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the 
message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to 
[email-masked].

        Thank you

                                        www.telecomitalia.it

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:33:04 +0100

I agree with Cullen's vision for reducing the level of confusion in our 
discussions on this point.

Please use "unrestricted" unless someone can explain how you know that your 
own "public" IP address is really public - note that observing that it's not 
an IPv4 RFC 1918 address is not sufficient. In addition to "stolen" IP 
prefixes that are actually allocated to someone else (maybe I don't care), 
I've worked places that used their own allocated "public" addresses 
internally and STILL NATed (I would care about these).

My understanding of Jonathan's remarks at the microphone was that 
"supernode" (or "unrestricted") was orthogonal to whether the node is behind 
a NAT or not. I agreed with his remarks.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>

>
> Good suggestion - I like restricted peer. I think "public" is better  than 
> super but I might prefer "unrestricted".
>

---

From: jiangxingfeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:46:29 +0100

Is public/unrestricted peer and restricted peer used to differentiate peers
which are behind NAT or not? 

There are some other considerations other than NAT problems when decide a
node is to be a super peer or not. For example, node's processing power,
storage and etc. 

Maybe we should work out a more general terminology to reflect these
differences? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:42 AM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: P2PSIP WG

---

From: "yang ji" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:17:54 +0800

Also the maintanance and operation mode, selection mode, or even business
mode for such kind of special peer nodes need to be clarified for further
understanding .

Best regards
JI Yang

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:21:27 +0200

I agree.
 
I also have a problem with the deffinition of a "proxy"/"gateway"/etc.
peer. If I understand this well, peer is a node that provides storage
and transport services. The individual peers may also offer other
services (e.g. STUN server service). This means that some peers can be
collocated with e.g. STUN servers. Alternatively STUN and other servers
may reside in other nodes (e.g. external to a P2PSIP overlay).
 
Marcin

________________________________

	From: ext yang ji [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 21 March, 2007 15:18
	To: jiangxingfeng
	Cc: P2PSIP WG
	Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] What does "Super" mean

	Also the maintanance and operation mode, selection mode, or even
business mode for such kind of special peer nodes need to be clarified
for further understanding .
	 
	Best regards
	JI Yang

		Is public/unrestricted peer and restricted peer used to
differentiate peers
		which are behind NAT or not? 
		
		There are some other considerations other than NAT
problems when decide a
		node is to be a super peer or not. For example, node's
processing power,
		storage and etc.
		
		Maybe we should work out a more general terminology to
reflect these 
		differences?

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:48:54 +0100

Sounds good. We are very happy to have suggested text for these
things. Please write up some of your thoughts and share them with the
list!

Thanks!

David

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: "yang ji" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:40:00 +0800

There could be some kind of operator to run the P2PSIP super nodes and
provide service and management. And the computation capability of the super
node could be very strong. The self-management capability is alsos a key
feature for the P2P super nodes, compared with those centralised SIP
servers. The transaction state of SIP session could be stored in this
overlay, for maintance and billing purpose....

Some idea like that,

That doesn't mean the purely distributed P2PSIP service could not be
deployed without the support or this kind super node. The ordinary nodes
could also provide some basic P2PSIP based services, without the help of
super nodes. They are complementary for each other.

Waiting for comments/discussion on the business consideration

BR

JI Yang
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT)
FAX: 86-10-62283522

2007/3/22, David A. Bryan <[email-masked]>:
> business