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.
