On Feb 12, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Saverio Mascolo wrote:
ALTO aims at providing informations on network status, i.e.
feedback, so that applications can make smarter decision.
well, ALTO is delivering a ranking/preference system and not any
information about network status.
Now, network status _may_ be used in order to derive/compute a given
preference. This is in hands of the ALTO provider and not supposed to
be standardized in any form.
A potential warning here comes from the fact that the applications
close the loop and this maybe destabilizing.
Thus, standardiation should also involve how to use ALTO
informations to pursue objectives such as load balancing routing
etc. In other terms standardization should involve information and
how to use it.
I don't think I agree here.
Standardizing "use of ALTO information" assumes you enforce a
specific behavior. It will be unpractical and (IMHO) limited in its
effectiveness.
s.
2009/2/11 Stanislav Shalunov <[email protected]>
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
--
Prof. Saverio Mascolo
Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica
Politecnico di Bari
Via Orabona 4
70125 Bari
Italy
Tel. +39 080 5963621
Fax. +39 080 5963410
email:[email protected]
http://c3lab.poliba.it
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
