Roni, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this
document.
Lars
> On 2022-5-7, at 14:38, Roni Even via Datatracker wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-19: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer
Hi,
On 2021-8-24, at 16:07, Qin Wu wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing the proposed re-charter of the ALTO working group.
> Obviously your opinions are very important as a Transport expert, but it is
> disappointing that you have made such a strong objection so late in the
> process and after the
Hi,
On 2010-10-9, at 10:18, Y.J. GU wrote:
In Data Center operation, one basic consensus is 'When Virtual Machines move
from one site to another, the IP Addresses will not change, so that the
existing service connection will not be broken'.
inside one data center, sure. Maybe even across
Hi,
On 2010-6-23, at 10:56, wangaijun wrote:
From previous discussion, we can know the Server Notification Mechanism(SNM)
is important for the communication efficiency between ALTO Server and ALTO
Client. It is very similar to the “Traffic Guidance System”,in which the
traffic control
Hi,
On 2010-6-24, at 12:28, wangaijun wrote:
The ip address allocation map can be coarser or finer, and get the different
p2p localization effect. The ISP may adjust this allocation map, to give the
p2p clients more or less hint according to the network condition. In this
situation, it is
Hi,
On 2010-5-21, at 4:05, wangaijun wrote:
We have submitted the updated version of our draft about notification
mechanism at http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sun-alto-notification-02.txt,
any comments are welcomed.
I find this proposal to be problematic. ALTO is not a signaling protocol, and
On 2009-6-3, at 21:14, Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
Your congestion example is spot on. Provisioned link capacity
(upstream
and downstream) is not very helpful for peer selection unless the
current
load on the link is considered.
Agreed, but I understood that that was the information you were
On 2009-6-4, at 10:20, Enrico Marocco wrote:
It seems reasonable to allow the ALTO protocol to carry, in addition
to
topology and cost-related information, also other information like
minimum and perhaps estimated latency (I'll let others argue whether
both would be feasible or not) about the
10 matches
Mail list logo
