A Distributed Transport Function in P2PSIP using HIP for Multi-Hop Overlay Routing
draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. Eric C. Cooper | ||
| Last updated | 2007-06-18 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document examines a P2PSIP architecture where the peer-to-peer (P2P) layer is separate from and lies below the SIP layer. We discuss the functions of the P2P layer in such an architecture, and focus in on the Distributed Transport function - the function that allows a peer to exchange messages with any other peer in the overlay, even in the presence of NATs. We list the features that the Distributed Transport function needs to provide, and observe that the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) already provides a number of these features. We then propose extensions to HIP that allow it to provide the missing features. We discuss how a complete P2PSIP architecture can be built around HIP, and contrast this approach with other approaches for implementing a P2P layer. Two of the advantages of HIP approach are that (a) most existing applications can run in an overlay without needing any changes and (b) peer mobility and NAT traversal are handled in a way that is transparent to most applications.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)