> maybe someone would be kind enough to provide a specific use case of ASN in ALTO
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-03, especially section 5.2. The "22 iTracker node identifiers" are essentially the 22 AS's in the Comcast network. -- Rich ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tao Ma Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:23 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO client protocol and Autonomous System Numbers Hi, As Reinaldo said, different aggregation methods could be used, so there is no need to mandate the usage of aggregation IDs or conceal them from the ALTO client. But maybe someone would be kind enough to provide a specific use case of ASN in ALTO. Regards --Tao Ma Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Mobile life and new media lab. > Hello, > > I think what you are asking is this: > > If the ALTO protocol uses any type of indirect aggregation (ASNs, PID, etc) as opposed to plain prefixes, does the ALTO Server needs to expand them? I do no think this issue is specific to ASNs. > > As long as you have the proper interfaces /query mechanism in place, it seems to me you are free to use an aggregation method that suits your deployment. The ALTO Protocol draft and the presentation at the last IETF provided examples on PIDs usage and resolution. But that could be ASNs or any other aggregation. > > Thanks, > > Reinaldo > > > On 4/21/09 1:16 AM, "Sebastian Kiesel" <sebastian.kiesel at nw.neclab.eu> wrote: > > Wouldn't it be better to mandate that the second line has to be expanded > to the corresponding cidr lines at the ALTO server side, to ensure that > the ALTO client does not have to deal with AS numbers? > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
