Hi All, First I should say that I still do not understand the diagram. I can infer the intention of 1 and 3, but not the other two: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/alto-10.pdf
Which one represents P4P/Info Export? Any elaboration? To be honest, I should say that the image did create an image of conflicting possibilities in my mind and may not represent real protocols, which can support multiple possibilities. Regarding a comparison, I think slide 20 of my presentation presents a much more converging picture than the slide in the preceding link. My presentation slides are at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/alto-5.pdf Some self promotion here: Re supporting multiple modes: I believe that the merged version of P4P/Info Export can already support what we discussed. Please read my slides if you get a chance. For example, Example 1 (slides 14-16) and Example 2 (slides 17-19) represent one extreme (Case 2 of the image?). Example 3 (slides 22-23) represents the Sorting approach (Case 1 of the image?). So we do believe that we have a good solution already. Of course, any additional comments and contributions are highly welcome. Re a negotiation protocol. I personally think that negotiation on prefix lengths and options will be too complicated. The current P4P/Info Export already supports "negotiation" in a simple sense. In particular, when an ALTO Client queries an ALTO Server, the first query is to obtain the Interface Descriptors (please see all three examples in my slides). The ALTO Server returns the interfaces supported. The Client then picks the one that it deems usable. We did not call it a negotiation because it is not. But if we stretch a bit, it is a kind of negotiation. We will be happy to revise this part to make it clearer and more flexible, if people think it can be a good starting base. Cheers, Richard On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, 10:39pm -0400, Woundy, Richard wrote: > For those not attending the second session in person, here are the relevant > slides: > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/slides/alto-10.pdf > > ________________________________ > > From: Woundy, Richard > Sent: Thu 3/26/2009 10:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Woundy, Richard; [email protected] > Subject: Is there really a 'war' between ISPs and app providers? > > > The WG chairs' diagram in the second ALTO session today portrayed a war > between ISPs unwilling to provide topology information to the ALTO > client, and P2P applications unwilling to provide any information to the > ALTO server. > > The image is strong, but it does not seem to reflect the reality that > we are seeing. From our perspective, while the ISPs have constraints > about what they can disclose, the ISPs are still able to provide useful > policy information to the P2P applications. P2P applications have > concerns about the privacy of their users, but do want to cooperate with > the ISP to optimize network traffic in a manner beneficial to ISPs. > > We are working together to solve an important problem that ISPs and the > Internet have in general: the inefficiency of overlay routing, and lack > of policy information available in machine-readable form. We have a > proposal that we believe helps solve the problem to the satisfaction of > both communities. > > Can we agree as a WG that there is no 'hemispherical conflict'? > > -- Rich Woundy, Comcast > -- Stanislav Shalunov, BitTorrent > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
