Subject: [P2PSIP] Routing discussion slides for this week's session

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:48:21 -0800

David has graciously uploaded my slides to 
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/p2psip-0.ppt.

Please don't feel that you must wait until the face-to-face meeting to 
respond to this presentation passionately ;-)

Spencer 

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

---

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:10:35 -0800

> respond to this presentation passionately ;-)

I would add at least two benefits of iterative routing:

1) Iterative routing makes routing more secure in case you have
malicious nodes in your overlay (by doing parallel lookups over disjoint
paths).

2) Some overlay protocols like Kademlia or Broose are designed to only
work with iterative routing (because these protocols maintain their
routing tables by learning form incoming lookup requests).

Regards,
  Ingmar

-- 
Dipl.-Inform. Ingmar Baumgart
Institut für Telematik, Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
Zirkel 2, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
Phone: +49 721 608 8281, Fax: +49 721 608 6789

---

From: "Victor Pascual Ávila" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:05:57 +0100

Sorry, I just forgot to copy the P2PSIP community.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Victor Pascual Ávila <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Dec 2007 01:01
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Routing discussion slides for this week's session
To: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>

> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/p2psip-0.ppt.

Great job.

I would enforce the difference between P2P and SIP routing, they are
'different application layers'.

Thank you,
--
Victor Pascual Ávila

-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

---

From: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:11:59 -0800

> malicious nodes in your overlay (by doing parallel lookups over disjoint

You're right, iterative makes security and fault diagnosis much easier.

> routing tables by learning form incoming lookup requests).

It's going to be tremendously painful to implement a dht for peers
behind NATs that insists on being iterative.   I would rather utilize
a modified algorithm or just say that it's fine to have DHTs that
don't work in all environments.

Bruce

---

From: Ingmar Baumgart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:18:37 -0800

> don't work in all environments.

Well, Kademlia is the only widely deployed structured peer-to-peer
overlay in the Internet today. The eMule Kad networks is based on
Kademlia with currently over 1 Mio users and uses iterative routing.

Regards,
  Ingmar

---

From: Salman Abdul Baset <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:25:29 -0500 (EST)

> don't work in all environments.

It is likely that peers will publish their address candidates (host, 
server-reflexive, and relay) in the overlay. Peers using iterative routing 
can send parallel copies of the request to the host, server-reflexive, and 
relay address of the next hop. If the address candidates of the next 
hop are not available, then a CONNECT-like offer/exchange mechanism can be 
used.

-s