Subject: [p2p-sip] What are we doing, question 2

From: ksankar at cisco.com (Krishna Sankar (ksankar))
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:23:30 -0700

Peter,

	Agreed, we should not create more work for us and we should make
assumptions and requirements that simplify our work. OTOH, we cannot
make assumptions that will curtail our adoption.

	Without getting into any sort of a religious debate, mobile IP
and MANET are solving different problems. Me thinks (am open to be
corrected) that we will find MANET more than mobile IP. Depending on
that assumption, we can decide the mobility substrate requirements one
way or the other. May be, as David says, we should de-prioritize (for
1.0) the whole MANET issue and assume no mobility substrate or one that
is transparent/irrelevant to us. Like I said earlier, we should specify
the assumptions behind this crisply so that there is no ambiguity and
divergence later.

Cheers
<k/>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Pan [mailto:huang-ming.pan at comcast.net] 
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:07 PM
> To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar); Mike Robinson; Roy, Radhika R.
> Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] What are we doing, question 2
> 
> The basic troubles to application, operating system and 
> network caused by a IP change are described in rfc 3344.
> 
> The troubles to P2P SIP at least includes:
> 
> * stale DHT fingers or k-buckets (besides those resulted from 
> nodes leaving
> network)
> * stale SIP registration (nodes need to register)
> * stale TURN relay (needs re-discovery) and sessions (needs SDP
> re-negotiation)
> * no more transparent singaling/media handover (if "L7 
> handover" had worked perfectly there would be no rfc 3344)
> 
> Please omit unnecessary work when good solution (ip mobility) 
> is there.
> 
> Peter
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ksankar at cisco.com>
> To: "Peter Pan" <huang-ming.pan at comcast.net>; "Mike Robinson"
> <mike_robnson at yahoo.com>; "Roy, Radhika R." <RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com>
> Cc: <p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] What are we doing, question 2
> 
> 
> > Yep, MANET and IP mobility are different paradigms. And yes, most 
> > probably the underlying connectivity substrate *can* be 
> irrelevant to 
> > us.
> >
> > BTW, what is so catastrophic about an IP change ? When IP changes, 
> > delete the old record and add a new one. I know that we 
> need to work 
> > thru the various cases and map out the various protocol activities.
> >
> > Cheers
> > <k/>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Pan [mailto:huang-ming.pan at comcast.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 4:20 PM
> > > To: Mike Robinson; Roy, Radhika R.; Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
> > > Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] What are we doing, question 2
> > >
> > > Won't mobility be taken care transparently (w/o ip change) by 
> > > routers supporting 802.11f, rfc 3344 and related standards?
> > > IP change sounds chaotic (if not catastrophic) to DHT.
> > >
> > > Are MANET and IP mobility mutual exclusive?
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Mike Robinson
> > > To: Roy, Radhika R. ; Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
> > > Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 2:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] What are we doing, question 2
> > >
> > >
> > > Radhika Roy wrote:
> > >
> > > >>In fact, we will be working cooperating with them to
> > > complete our work:
> > > >> p2pSIP Application Layer to the MANET Network Layer.
> > >
> > > What is that you refer to "our work"? Whose work are you talking? 
> > > Did IETF assign you a spokesman for MANET?
> > >
> > > Could you please update us who authorized to speak on behalf of  
> > > MANET group?
> > >
> > > By the way, ad-hoc networks have nothing to do with p2p since p2p 
> > > can run on fixed infrastructure and ad-hoc networks need 
> not use p2p 
> > > for applications.
> > > Did it occur to you that one can run client server 
> applications even 
> > > when network may be based on ad-hoc network routing protocol. 
> > > Supporting mobility in p2p nodes is quite difficult 
> contrary to what 
> > > you say in your typical hand waving style (since you 
> would need to 
> > > do reinsert your mobile nodes in a DHT, reconfigure DHT, 
> and update 
> > > resource information at all DHT nodes)
> > >
> > > I hope you would try to understand the issues with DHT 
> and mobility 
> > > before you resume your periodic vacuous comments in 
> support of p2p 
> > > sip (which almost always are devoid of any technical input 
> > > whatsoever).
> > >
> > >
> > > o mike
> > >
> > >
> > > "Roy, Radhika R." <RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com> wrote:
> > > KS:
> > >
> > > To support p2pSIP for mobile nodes (if not mobile devices per
> > > se) should not be difficult. IETF Mobile Ad Hoc Network
> > > (MANET) WG has already done the most difficult works in this p2p 
> > > networking environment: Network Routing and QoS support.
> > >
> > > So, it will be rather easy to support the p2pSIP application 
> > > protocol that will ride over the network layer MANET protocol.
> > >
> > > In fact, we will be working cooperating with them to complete our 
> > > work:
> > > p2pSIP Application Layer to the MANET Network Layer.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Radhika R. Roy
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu 
> > > [mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Krishna Sankar
> > > (ksankar)
> > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:43 AM
> > > To: David Barrett; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] What are we doing, question 2
> > >
> > > My view of the P2P-SIP world ...
> > >
> > > > 2) Does P2PSIP work on mobile devices assigned dynamic 
> IP addresses?
> > >
> > > Yep, definitely. Might not be that easy
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > p2p-sip mailing list
> > > p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC 
> > > and save big.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>