Subject: [P2PSIP] Interconnecton of differet P2P-SIP domains

From: Isaías Martínez Yelmo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:06:36 +0100

Hello to everybody,

First of all, I'm going to present myself. My name is Isaias Martinez-Yelmo 
and I has been monitoring your interesting work.

From time to time, some discussion in relation with the interconnection of 
different P2P-SIP domains arrange to this mailing list. This issue is in 
particular interesting if the different domains use a different p2p 
algorithm.

I think that this point is really interesting for researches and for IETF, 
specially for this WG. A P2P-SIP standard will be available in the future, 
but if any mechanism is not provided to interconnect different domains, 
probably will not be feasible the wide development of this protocol with all 
its advantages which it is not desirable.

Thus, my question for the WG is if it is in the scope of the planned work to 
address with this feature. I will be really interested to contribute in the 
WG specially in this issue.

Regards

Isaias

-- 
Isaías Martínez Yelmo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Departamento de Telemática
http://www.it.uc3m.es/~imyelmo
Asociación de Telématica:
http://www.telematica.ws
http://www.netcoms.net
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:31:32 -0500

I think it's certainly within scope.  I think
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marocco-p2psip-interwork-01.txt
makes some good points about how to handle some of these problems,
i.e. some peers must be reachable through conventional 3263 resolution
of a DNS domain that maps to the overlay.  In terms of communication
between overlays, if they're both reachable to conventional SIP UAs,
then they are obviously reachable to each other that way.

Doing a more p2p-based approach to interoperating with two overlays
is, I think, a more interesting question.  A simple broadcast
mechanism could obviously identify that  a peer from another overlay
is present, and if every peer proxies requests and you have a means of
ensuring security, then certainly local proxying could be done.  I
don't know if these techniques are necessarily first-step items, but I
think they are in scope for the WG.

Bruce

---

From: Isaías Martínez Yelmo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:40:19 +0100

I'm very glad to receive this answer. My PhD topic is to study the 
interconnection between different overlays and it is not trivial issue.

I think that the scenario where you are working is the most suitable scenario 
for the application of my future work.

I think that the concepts on draft-marocco-p2psip-interwork-01 are 
interesting. Nevertheless, I agree with the idea of providing a distributed 
solution to interconnect the different P2PSIP domains. I am thinking on 
writing a draft to show the problem statement of interconnecting different 
overlay networks.

Furthermore, I would like that my ongoing work will be useful in the real 
world. So, I am really interested in definition of the P2PSIP protocol 
because probably it will be a good starting point to develop work. Thus, I 
expect that my comments about it will be insightful for you.

Regards,

Isaías

On Martes, 6 de Marzo de 2007, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
> > First of all, I'm going to present myself. My name is Isaias
> > Martinez-Yelmo and I has been monitoring your interesting work.
> >
> > From time to time, some discussion in relation with the interconnection
> > of different P2P-SIP domains arrange to this mailing list. This issue is
> > in particular interesting if the different domains use a different p2p
> > algorithm.
> >
> > I think that this point is really interesting for researches and for
> > IETF, specially for this WG. A P2P-SIP standard will be available in the
> > future, but if any mechanism is not provided to interconnect different
> > domains, probably will not be feasible the wide development of this
> > protocol with all its advantages which it is not desirable.
> >
> > Thus, my question for the WG is if it is in the scope of the planned work
> > to address with this feature. I will be really interested to contribute
> > in the WG specially in this issue.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaias
> >
> > --
> > Isaías Martínez Yelmo