Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Consensus calls

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:07:29 +0300

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with the WG decision, at least for now. Every DHT algorithm has
different properties, one requires less bandwith but does not work well
in the case of high churn, another is resilient to frequent changes in
network topology but is slow in lookups. DHTs are like codecs, there can
be many available, each one suitable for a different deployment
scenario. Besides, research on DHT algorithms is still ongoing. We may
see better DHTs available in the future.

I do not know what happened with the use cases for P2PSIP draft. I think
we need to continue discussion on the use cases. At the same time we
should analyze different DHT algorithms and see if we can choose one
algorithm or if we need many.  

I am actually not convinced that DHT is the best choice.

Marcin       

>Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>
>In any case I agree with all three hums, but would prefer one 
>DHT to be mandatory to implement, not more than one.
>
>-Jonathan R.
>-- 
>Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
>Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 
>07054-2711
>Cisco Systems
>[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
>http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
>http://www.cisco.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>P2PSIP mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>

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

---

From: EdPimentl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:28:30 -0400

Jonathan,

With enough time and resources we can always find or develop a better solution.
The objective at this time is to draw a line in the sand and avoid the
analysis paralysis that we often see in TelCO projects that is like
mating elephants and takes two years to produce results.

While we speaking about endpoints, and the future.
I am sure many of us would like the endpoints to  be H.325 and P2P
while at the same time  being a WebServices(REST) node with generic
binding to  ip communications.

For now I would happy with a concensus on what DHT to start with, what
generic signaling to use on the wire, basic subset for joining the
overlay, managing churn and basic sip and p2p
interoperability/internetworking scenerios...
This would allow us within the opensource project to get to work,
while we monitor the progress of the WG and plan for whatever
direction is taken/given by its members.

my .02 cents

O
Thanks in advance and best regards,

Ed Pimentel
AgileCO
Founder

Mail:   edpimentl[at]gmail.com
IM:     edpimentl [AOL | Jabber | Yahoo | MSN ]
Voip:   edpimentl [SKype | GoogleTalk ]

Mobile Content Marketing/Management/Digital Delivery
http://mobilecentral.ws

Mobile ( Relevant, Ambient, Location ) based Social Network
http://TagR.mobi (Alpha)

Mobile Payment - P2P Payment
http://agilepay.ws

Sponsor of P2PSIP  open source [viasip_ng] project
Creating a standards base P2PSIP dSIP infrastructure
https://sourceforge.net/projects/viasip/
Mailing List [email-masked]