Dear All, According to the progress and long discussion of CAN, we believe we have reached some consensus of the following three important issues. More detailed clarification of those issues could be found in https://github.com/CAN-IETF/CAN-BoF-ietf113/blob/main/CAN-Key-Q%26A.doc.
1. What is the relationship between CAN and ALTO? There were some discussions and the responses in https://github.com/CAN-IETF/CAN-BoF-ietf113/issues/5. After discussion in mailing list, IETF meetings with people interested in CAN and ALTO, we get the conclusion: CAN aims to provide a possible on-path solution for efficiently steering traffic to one of possible many service instances. The on-path solution requires to make the decision on the ingress node of the network based on network and other metrics. These kind of metrics may be distributed through extensions to routing protocols. ALTO is by inquiry and response, i.e., off-path, mechanism, which is different from the on-path approach proposed in CAN. 2. What is the relationship between CAN and TSV Area? We had presented CAN work in TSVWG in IETF114 and get the conclusion from TSV WG: CAN is a Routing Area work item, people can keep following TSV to see what is needed in transport protocols. 3. What is the relationship between CAN and Load Balancer? There are several types of Load Balancer, L7/L4/L3 load balancers. CAN aims to provide L3/L3.5 solution for selecting better instance, therefore CAN could act similar to the role of L3/L3.5 load balancer, but not limited to it. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Regards, Peng liupeng...@chinamobile.com
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
