There shouldn't be much risk of ALTO forming a "feedback loop" because ALTO is
intended only to communicate relatively static information, and specifically is
not intended to communicate real-time status information, which is a transport
issue.
- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
mobile: 646/465-0570
----- Original Message -----
From: "Song Haibin" <[email protected]>
To: "stefano previdi" <[email protected]>, "Saverio Mascolo"
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:47:48 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [alto] differences among applications
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of stefano
previdi
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:42 PM
To: Saverio Mascolo
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [alto] differences among applications
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.
[Song Haibin] Then what information should be in the ranking form and what
information should not be?
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.
[Song Haibin] Um… for designing each parameter of ALTO information, I think the
motivation itself is the guidance on how to use this kind of ALTO information.
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
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
