Speaking of Standards

Could Skype realistically replace its proprietary peer-to-peer (P2P) algorithm with P2PSIP?

Over on his Skype Journal site, Phil Wolff shows another example of why I’ve always followed the mantra “Never put online, in any form, anything you don’t want to appear on the front page of a news site” when Phil shows what was obviously intended to be a private email about ideas of what to do with Skype. (This has all surfaced as part of Skype’s ongoing legal battles on a number of different fronts, which I’m not going to dive into here.)

Per Phil’s article, the idea was this:

- buy skype, replace p2p with SIP (standard-based, open, can interwork with other VoIP systems – like the Cisco phones)

What’s perhaps most interesting about Phil’s post, though, were the comments that started with Lee Dryburgh of eComm fame weighing in saying that it makes ZERO sense (technically) and then went on from there. Lee and Shidan Gouran then got into a bit of a discussion in the comments.

Leaving the personal jabs aside, it’s actually an interesting discussion to consider. (And knowing both Lee and Shidan, I’m sure that they actually agree on way more than they disagree on.)

WHAT IS P2PSIP?

Lee’s right that there’s a difference between “SIP” as a protocol and all the overlays, DHTs and everything else that goes with “P2P” protocols. To Lee’s points about the difference, though, that is precisely what the “P2PSIP” work happening within the P2PSIP Working Group of the IETF is addressing. For those who want to read the proposed P2PSIP protocol itself, the latest draft is here in two parts:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-sip

The first draft defines a P2P protocol called “REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)”. The second draft explains how RELOAD can be used with SIP.

To Lee’s points, RELOAD is a separate protocol from “SIP”. Now, RELOAD does indeed use a Chord-based DHT… though, the best place to start is probably the Architecture section at the beginning to understand how the pieces fit together.

So what is being called “P2PSIP” within the IETF is more this:

P2PSIP = SIP + P2P-protocol

More info about all things related to P2PSIP can be found at a great site maintained by David Bryan, co-chair of the IETF P2PSIP Working Group:

http://www.p2psip.org/

I’ve also written more about “P2PSIP” here on this blog, including this piece back in May 2008 about why I believe P2PSIP is important.

BUT COULD SKYPE REALLY USE P2PSIP?

Probably.

The question is really –

Could Skype swap out it’s proprietary P2P protocol for the P2P protocol proposed as part of P2PSIP?

That’s the larger issue. As Lee points out, SIP is “just” a signaling protocol for setting up communication sessions. The decentralized P2P nature of Skype is due to its proprietary P2P algorithm, not its session signaling.

That’s the key point, really – there are two different layers of communication going on here:

1. networking between the endpoints (the P2P layer)
2. call and chat signaling setup, modification, tear-down, etc.

The P2P layer is probably the hardest one to replace. The signaling layer is probably easier as there are any number of choices out there today, including SIP, XMPP and others.

Plus, as Shidan Gouran accurately points out, Skype’s current system is NOT entirely decentralized/P2P. It is much more of a hybrid system. There are centralized enrollment/authentication servers (as we learned in the multi-day outage a few years back), a centralized directory (although pieces of that could potentially be spread across the P2P overlay) and of course centralized PSTN interconnectivity.

Could all that be replaced with a different P2P protocol? Probably… although certainly not without a lot of work – and also the severe headaches of dealing with backward compatibility and getting the huge installed base of Skype users to upgrade to a new client.

Could that protocol be P2PSIP? Again, probably. The advantage would be that the SIP layer would give Skype interoperability with other systems, networks, devices, etc.

THE OTHER OPTION

I’d note, too, that the email Phil quotes says “replace p2p with SIP”. It does not say “replace p2p with p2psip”. There very well could be folks thinking of dumping the whole proprietary P2P protocol and dumping P2P in general and migrating to be a “standard” kind of SIP system like Gizmo (yes, which Skype has been rumored to be buying) or any of the other SIP-based consumer softphone services out there.

Sure, I’m sure they could technically do it. As an open standards guy, it would be great on one level in that it would help move us along toward the great big “interconnect” many of us so want to see. It would, though, require a much different architecture than what Skype has used so successfully today.

SO….

Will Skype replace their proprietary protocol with P2PSIP?

Ha… I haven’t a clue… nor does anyone else outside those walls. All we can do is have moments of technical amusement like this speculating on the possibility.

As I’ve noted before, Skype has been hiring in this year some great folks with lots of SIP experience… but… Skype is also a HUGE user of SIP on its backend for PSTN interconnectivity… plus they rolled out their Skype for SIP program this year…. so they have lots going on related to SIP.

We’ll see… all we can really say is that the time ahead will continue to be an interesting one for all things related to Skype…