Apologies for a bit delayed response.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Enrico Marocco wrote:
The goal of ALTO is to help all applications that have to select a
subset of nodes to connect to out of a fairly big set of candidates, and
to help them to do better-than-random initial peer selection. The
charter
an observation which I think might help the
discussion.
- Jan
-Original Message-
From: alto-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Salman Abdul Baset
Sent: Freitag, 5. Juni 2009 01:05
To: Enrico Marocco
Cc: alto
Subject: Re: [alto] 'Link capacity' in scope?
On Thu
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
You are probably thinking a centralized ALTO server. There is no reason
why peers cannot act as ALTO servers which inturn obtain their
link capacity information from ISP managed ALTO servers.
Uh? I'm thinking of a protocol clients can use to query servers in
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
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
Nodes (clients) can use the spare capacity (provisioned - current load) of
relay candidates as a metric to guide their search of relays. I think
such a usage is peer selection optimization. What do you think?
Ok, I'm totally lost now. I thought your initial question
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
Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com wrote:
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
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Lars Eggert wrote:
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
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Enrico Marocco wrote:
You are probably thinking a centralized ALTO server. There is no reason
why peers cannot act as ALTO servers which inturn obtain their
link capacity information from ISP managed ALTO servers.
Uh? I'm thinking of a protocol clients can use to query
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:57:21PM -0400, Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
My question is whether it is within the scope of ALTO to design a
mechanism to pass the link capacity, that ISP promised to the customer at
the time of the purchase of the plan, to the [A]DSL/high speed modem
which passes
The discussion is focused on 'provisioned link capacity' and not the
transient or instantaneous capacity.
-s
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:11 AM, John Leslie wrote:
(I honestly don't see why any ISP would be unwilling to supply
that information _to_ its
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
The WG has been chartered to define a protocol to provide applications
with information to perform better than random peer selection; honestly,
I don't see how information about its own link capacity -- assuming it
is feasible to determine it in a meaningful way
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
I don't actually understand how knowing *its own* provisioned link
capacity could help a peer in selecting a good voice relay or conference
node. I agree that it could be useful for the application itself, e.g.
to select a default codec, but to me that's just not peer
-to-live) would not be feasible.
-- Rich
-Original Message-
From: alto-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
John Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:20 PM
To: Nicholas Weaver
Cc: alto
Subject: Re: [alto] 'Link capacity' in scope?
Nicholas Weaver nwea
John Leslie wrote:
The WG has been chartered to define a protocol to provide applications
with information to perform better than random peer selection; honestly,
I don't see how information about its own link capacity -- assuming it
is feasible to determine it in a meaningful way without
. not ALTO.
I totally agree.
-- Rich
-Original Message-
From: alto-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Enrico Marocco
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:52 PM
To: Salman Abdul Baset
Cc: alto
Subject: Re: [alto] 'Link capacity' in scope?
Salman Abdul Baset wrote
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Enrico Marocco wrote:
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
I don't actually understand how knowing *its own* provisioned link
capacity could help a peer in selecting a good voice relay or conference
node. I agree that it could be useful for the application itself, e.g.
to select a
Salman Abdul Baset wrote:
I don't actually understand how knowing *its own* provisioned link
capacity could help a peer in selecting a good voice relay or conference
node. I agree that it could be useful for the application itself, e.g.
to select a default codec, but to me that's just not peer
I think the real question to ask is, why burden the WG with a protocol
(for obtaining bandwidth from somewhere) when the utility of
that information is going to be limited, at best, and on the average,
probably unusable or even harmful to other apps on a home network?
I would focus on
Randy Turner rtur...@amalfisystems.com wrote:
Of the methods expressed below...
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:20 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Three quite different ways come to mind:
1) Express the maximum you will (ever) see in the foreseeable future;
2) Express the maximum you will see for (all
So it sounds like you're looking at the problem from the other
direction...instead of trying to figure out what peers to use, your
intended use
for minimum latency is to try and figure out what peers to avoid ?
Randy
On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:02 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Randy Turner
Never mind, I had a logic seizure there for a moment in my last msg :)
Randy
On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:02 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Randy Turner rtur...@amalfisystems.com wrote:
Of the methods expressed below...
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:20 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Three quite different ways come to
I am not sure if the utility of provisioned link capacity is limited. For
applications such as voice or video relaying (which Skype does) or
conference mixing, the provisioned uplink capacity provides a simple upper
bound on the number of streams a link can support so that a peer does not
send
When a home customer purchases a [high speed] Internet plan from an ISP,
the ISP typically promises a certain upload/download link capacity for the
plan.
In the old days of dialup, a device using a modem established a
point-to-point connection with the ISP and knew the link capacity which
-Original Message-
From: alto-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Salman Abdul Baset
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:57 AM
To: alto
Subject: [alto] 'Link capacity' in scope?
When a home customer purchases a [high speed] Internet plan from an ISP
...@ietf.org [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Salman Abdul Baset
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:06 PM
To: Ali C. Begen (abegen)
Cc: alto
Subject: Re: [alto] 'Link capacity' in scope?
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: alto-boun...@ietf.org
26 matches
Mail list logo
