I don't like the idea to standardize the peer selection algorithms for each application either.
But image that when ALTO server receives a request with a source peer and a destination peer list for peer selection, it responds the ranking information for each peer in the list. Here with different applications the ranking result may be different. I don't know if ALTO server must implement different peer selection algorithms internally for different applications, so that it can rank the candidates list. Or ALTO server does not need to understand the requirement of a specific application, surely, it can responds to queries with parameters, e.g. the ALTO server will not responds with the ranking info (generally a simple ranking info will take a lot of considerations into account), but just the topology information such as the routing hops from peer A to peer B is 5, peer A to peer C is 4, the link quality from peer A to peer B is "good", peer A to peer C is "fair", the economy cost..... And then with retrieval many types of information what the application needs, the application makes the choice. So my general confusion here is whether the ALTO server needs to understand the requirements of a specific application to do the peer selection. Best Regards, Haibin Email: [email protected] Skype: alexsonghw >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:53 PM >To: Song Haibin >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [alto] differences among applications > >I would offer it is important to have the client specify what it >thinks is important. However, I would also offer it would be fatal to >have "Profile B", "Profile N", "Profile S" selection algorithms, where >B, N, and S are different applications. I will guarantee that by the >time we're done in the IETF, no one will case about those applications >and will have moved on to some other, hot applications. > >It may be worth noting what parameters are important. > >On Feb 10, 2009, at 7:25 AM, stefano previdi wrote: > >> >> On Feb 10, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Song Haibin wrote: >> >>> I think it is necessary to discuss whether we need to standardize >>> different >>> peer selection algorithms according to different types of >>> applications. >> >> We may want the alto protocol to allow the requester to specify >> which type of ranking/preference it needs. Note that this doesn't >> mean we need to standardize any algorithm. >> >> s. >> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Haibin >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Skype: alexsonghw >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>> Behalf Of >>> Enrico >>>> Marocco >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 7:16 PM >>>> To: Zoran Despotovic >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [alto] differences among applications >>>> >>>> Zoran Despotovic wrote: >>>>> I was wondering if and how IETF would address possible >>>>> differences among >>>>> relevant P2P applications in the sense that different >>>>> applications may >>>>> require totally different solutions. Was there any discussion on >>>>> this >>>>> before on the list? >>>> >>>> Yes, there's been some discussion about how to deal with the fact >>>> that >>>> different applications may have different requirements for peer >>>> selection -- e.g. file-sharing would benefit most from connections >>>> to >>>> peers with higher uplink bandwidth, while realtime communications >>>> applications would probably want to chose media relays with the >>>> smallest >>>> delay. >>>> >>>> I remember someone suggested that a way to address it could be to >>>> simply >>>> provide a means for the querying peer to specify what parameters it >>>> would like to have optimized (delay, bandwidth...) and let the ALTO >>>> server use such information in its processing. However, AFAIK, no >>>> solution proposals at this time do anything like that. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ciao, >>>> Enrico >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> alto mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> >> _______________________________________________ >> alto mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
