We haven't discussed anything about ALTO influencing actual underlay routing or anything of the sort. So I suppose it makes apps smarter by giving them more knowledge about the network and the routing preferences.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM, DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) < [email protected]> wrote: > Makes perfect sense to me. > > > > Is it fair to say an ALTO server adds intelligence to the network? > > > > Or is it more accurate to say that ALTO enables more intelligent app > execution via the availability of network [and perhaps other] information? > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Stanislav Shalunov [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:54 PM > *To:* DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) > > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [alto] differences among applications > > > > That's, to me, the idea of ALTO. The apps using information about ISP > routing preferences and the network to improve peer selection. > > Note that this is a very broadly applicable technique: sure, BitTorrent and > other P2P apps are most obvious users to begin with, but any sort of app > that has a choice of network destinations can benefit. Think along the > lines of CDNs, HTTP mirrors, or DNS servers choice, for example. > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM, DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Just to be sure: You envision the app selecting peers for specific pieces > of content and peer selection will use network data of some type in doing > so? > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of > *Stanislav Shalunov > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:51 PM > > > *To:* Zoran Despotovic > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [alto] differences among applications > > > > As others pointed out, an ALTO protocol is not expected to make peer > selections for the apps. On a high level, it's expected to provide > information about the network and about ISP routing preferences. > > > > While peer selection preferences vary from application to application > substantially, the network itself is the same, and so the information about > it remains valid. > > > > -- Stas > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Zoran Despotovic < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > 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? > > Just as an example, different criteria to drive peer selection may work > differently for give-to-get streaming and tit-for-tat BT. So how will IETF > deal with this? Standardize different solutions for different applications? > Standardize one solution for all? Pick the most critical (heaviest traffic) > applications and standardize a solution for it? > > It makes sense to clarify that at this early stage and, perhaps, first see > if the solution should and can be application agnostic or not. > > Best regards, > Zoran > > -- > Zoran Despotovic, Ph.D. > Senior Researcher > > DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH > Landsbergerstrasse 312, 80687 Munich, Germany > Tel: +49-89-56824-205 Fax: +49-89-56824-300 > http://www.docomoeurolabs.de/ > > Managing Directors (Geschaeftsfuehrer): > Dr. Toru Otsu, Dr. Narumi Umeda, Mr. Tsutomu Sakai > Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 132976 > -------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > > > > > -- > Stanislav Shalunov > BitTorrent Inc > [email protected] > > personal: http://shlang.com > > > > > -- > Stanislav Shalunov > BitTorrent Inc > [email protected] > > personal: http://shlang.com > -- Stanislav Shalunov BitTorrent Inc [email protected] personal: http://shlang.com
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
