I agree that (a) is where ALTO should focus.
To elaborate a bit, (a) can only be provided by the ISP by definition (nobody
else really knows the ISP's network and business policies), while (b) and (c)
are, if I understand you correctly, both currently being done using internal
communications within the p2p applications using their existing protocols. IMO,
standardizing (a) is very important because it allows ISPs to provide
information to applications that that they can't otherwise get (e.g. ISP
policies) or can only derive in complex, inaccurate ways (e.g. using hop counts
to approximate network locality).
- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
mobile: 646/465-0570
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:39:57 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
Peer selection is important to ISPs from a network utilization perspective and
to peers themselves from a performance perspective. That automatically makes
peer selection a function of multiple aspects - a) information that some
service providers may decide to share with the peers, b) information that peers
decide to make available about themselves to other peers for this purpose, and,
c) any measurements peers may do on their own. The current charter definition
(and from what I can tell based on your response below) only seems to allow for
a). I would agree that c) is out of scope of
ALTO and something that peers can additionally do. I strongly believe that b)
should be part of the ALTO work.
I believe that incorporating (b) expands the charter quite a bit,
whereas the consensus since the first BoF was for narrowing
it down. I will also note that the feedback expressed on the
list does not appear to view ALTO as a peer description protocol.
To be sure, I am not unsympathetic to (b), it seems like a great
problem to solve, it's just that ALTO may not be the best place
to solve this problem.
In the end, maybe the ADs can decide a way forward.
There's plenty of work to do in a). My recommendation based on estimation of
appropriate scope as well as an estimation of the consensus here, would be to
do that first -- to have a charter that is scoped to (a). Then the
possibilities for (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual
submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG. Another option would be a future charter
update for ALTO if it's successful and there's consensus for it to be the basis
for (b).
Lisa
_______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list [EMAIL
PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
