On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:41 PM, stefano previdi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > the use of the ranking/preference as a base for any decision will close the loop. this may trigger closed loop dynamics. TCP is an example of closed loop dynamics, even though in a much poor information context. -s > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
