Hi Reinaldo, Thank you and I think you raised a very good question. I totally agree that available bandwidth is more useful than provisioned bandwidth. But available bandwidth is rather dynamic, and it is very hard to measure it and provide the real-time status to ALTO clients.
With providing provisioned bandwidth, it can be seen with a high probability a client can select a "better" peer. It is better than random IMO. But if there is an easy method to rank the available bandwidth of a peer list, I will be very interested. BR, -Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Reinaldo Penno > (repenno) > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:33 AM > To: Vijay K. Gurbani; alto@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [alto] Potential privacy issue in draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-01? > > Another point is how¹s the provisioned access bandwidth really help decide > which peers are better. Today most P2P software allow caps to be put for > upload/download and people use it. Some come with a default based on the % > of the detect access speed. So, saying a user has 1Gb/s does not really mean > you will get better performance when connecting to him(er). I mean, it would > more inline with better than random to get the actual bandwidth allowed. > > > On 6/27/14, 10:26 AM, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <v...@bell-labs.com> wrote: > > >[Still as individual.] > > > >On 06/26/2014 05:10 AM, Songhaibin (A) wrote: > >> Sebastian gave an idea that we can use relative numbers to indicate > >> the endpoint's provisioned bandwidth instead of access type, which is > >> similar to what we have used to indicate the cost in the alto > >> protocol. > > > >The difference, of course, being that the ISP in some manner consented > >to having a normalized value of cost to be distributed in order to > >allow for better than random selections to improve network performance. > > > >In the case under discussion, the issue is does the subscriber consent > >to having their provisioned bandwidth be part of ALTO calculations? > > > >Remember, if the WG decides to go ahead and use provisioned bandwidth > >anyway, it could always do so. But then we'd better be prepared to > >deal with the eventuality on when (and if) the IESG challenges us on > >this privacy leak. If that happens, we'd better have a good response. > > > >Perhaps a midway could be to see if we can use the provisioned > >bandwidth for a set of (anonymous) subscribers instead of singleton > subscribers. > >That way, the larger herd provides some modicum of anonymity to an > >individual subscriber who is part of the herd. > > > >Cheers, > > > >- vijay > >-- > >Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent > >1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) > >Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurb...@alcatel-lucent.com > >Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq > > > >_______________________________________________ > >alto mailing list > >alto@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
