青春期对异性产生好感:P2PSIP Use Cases

来源:百度文库 编辑:偶看新闻 时间:2024/04/29 09:22:13

P2PSIP Use Case Attributes

Information collected by Spencer Dawkins, Ed.

(from draft-bryan-sipping-p2p-usecases-00)

Use Case
Number of Users *
Distribution of Nodes
Pure P2P?
Centralized Operations/
Management
Authenticated Users
Carrier-Class Robustness
Interaction with CS-SIP
DNS available
Public P2P VoIP Service Providers
millions
intra-domain
hybrid
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Open Global P2P VoIP Network millions
inter-domain
bybrid no
no
yes
yes
yes
Presence Using Multimedia Consumer Electronics Devices tens
intra-domain
P2P
no
no
no
no
yes
Impeded Access hundreds
inter-domain P2P
no
no
no
no
yes
Anonymous Communications tens
inter-domain
P2P
no
no
no
no
no
Security Conscious Small Organizations hundreds
intra-domain
P2P
maybe
yes
yes
no
yes
Ad-Hoc and Ephemeral Groups tens
intra-domain P2P
no
no
no
no
no
Emergency First Responder Networks thousands
intra-domain P2P
no
self-cert?
no
when available
no
Extending the Reach of Mobile Devices hundreds
intra-domain P2P
no
no
no
no
no
Deployments in the Developing World tens
inter-domain P2P
no
no
no
when available
no
Serverless or Small Scale IP-PBX tens
intra-domain P2P
maybe
self-cert?
no
yes
yes
P2P for Redundant SIP Proxies tens
intra-domain P2P
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Failover for Centralized Systems tens
intra-domain P2P
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

* "Number of Users" may not be "number of peers" in hybrid-P2P overlays.

Notes:

  • We expect the Use Cases draft to be revised in the near future (00 has expired).
  • We expect "Presence Using Multimedia Consumer Electronics Devices" to split into a PAN-scale overlay case and a WAN-scale overlay case. This table will be adjusted when the description is available.
  • "Authenticated Users" and "Carrier-Grade Robustness" are conflated in the current draft, and may be discussed separately in the revised draft.
  • "Distribution of Nodes" in this table is probably conflating link-layer broadcast and IP-level multicast, but we‘re ignoring this for now.
  • We may also need a "DHCP" column in this table - whether DHCP for additional dynamic configuration is available - but we‘re ignoring this for now.

Back to IETF work page