At Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:20:45 -0800, Narayanan, Vidya wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla > > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:47 AM > > To: Dondeti, Lakshminath > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] The case for direct response support in RELOAD > > > > At Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:30 -0800, > > Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > Responding to a few of your emails in these recent threads: > > > > > > When considering the "common" use cases, it may be worthwhile to > > > consider various small, medium and large enterprises where > > some, many > > > or most of the employees may be in motion carrying mobile devices > > > either with them in person or in a truck being part of an overlay. > > > Surely those devices can't all be forced to be "clients" in > > all cases. > > > > What do you mean "forced"? Being a client is a benefit, not a duty. > > > > Being a client is a benefit to the client itself, but, not > necessarily to the overlay.
Not necessarily, but sometimes. If I have a cray behind a 2400 bps modem, it's not a benefit for the overlay for it to be a client. > Being a client is also a local decision. > If many devices in the system actually chose to be clients, that is > not a good thing for the system as a whole. Again, that's not clear. It depends on the properties of those nodes. > So, we want to > incentivize nodes to be peers whenever possible. > > It really makes me uncomfortable when I hear things like designing > for a LAN or flatly dismissing wireless/mobile devices as clients, > etc. I don't think that people are doing that. Rather, I think that people are questioning whether it's important to have devices with extremely limited capabilities be able to act as peers. -Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
