Interledger compatibility with different ILP implementations and with other payment protocols

Implementations and SDKs
1

I have been getting my self familiar with topic of how ILP compares to other payment protocols, like for example ISO 20022. And so far i have learned that it takes very long time to get new payment protocol adopted, especially among the traditional financial institutions. It also seems that rather than adopting the new protocol fully, companies still use legacy protocols internally and only convert for new protocol format when sending data out.

So, this let me thinking, about how this would effect on ILP adoption? And would companies rather use data format converter, than fully adopt the ILP?

I see that there is two kind of interoperability (1) Interoperability between different ILP implementations and (2) interoperability between new and legacy payment protocols.

Interledger and many implementations

So, first compatibility issue, that already exists, is be between different ILP implementations as, if i have understood correctly, are partly because RFC’s don’t always take a firm stand about the implementation, for example about which header is used to carry which data. And this lead to compatibility issues between different ILP-node implementations, interledger.js, interledger.ru, Hyperledger Quilt and etc.

Interledger and other payment protocols

Second problem is compatibility of Interledger Protocol and other payment protocols like, ISO 20022 payment protocol, which seems to be the interoperability standard adopted by traditional financial institution.

Many times companies adopting ISO 20022 are still using other data formats internally, and are using converters or middleware mappers to convert data into format for internal and external use, one reason for this is cost of migration to new standard.

ILP middleware mapper

I’m trying to figure out, if ILP would benefit from some kind of middleware mapper, which for example converts ILP message format into ISO 20022 format.

2

Interledger uses a different pattern to other protocols so a direct mapping is not going to be easy.

One way to think of interledger in a world where the implementers are also using other protocols is that those other protocols would be used for settlement and ILP would be an unifying layer over the top of those.

The various implementations of ILP are (as far as I am aware) are all interoperable. The packet format is unambiguous and the different protocols fo exchanging packets are also well defined (BTP and HTTP).

3

Thank you for taking the time to answer @adrianhopebailie

One way to think of interledger in a world where the implementers are also using other protocols is that those other protocols would be used for settlement and ILP would be an unifying layer over the top of those.

I did some more research and i see the problem in mapping now, for example in SWIFT MT 103 and ISO 20022 debtor agent(receivers bank) identifier is same DEUTDEFF for Deutsche Bank and in ILP could be formed as g.deutschebank.bob. And even if the connector is not DB, but some third party ILSP, it already has settlement relationship with DB, they already have all information they need to make the settlement.

The various implementations of ILP are (as far as I am aware) are all interoperable. The packet format is unambiguous and the different protocols fo exchanging packets are also well defined (BTP and HTTP).

It might be that my information needs an update, i remember this being a case some time ago.