>The ALTO reqs draft already says: Oops I should have known that. :(
----- Original Message ----- From: Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> To: Woundy, Richard Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thu Mar 18 19:19:52 2010 Subject: Re: [alto] Comments on provisioned bandwidth and ALTO On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 06:54:13PM -0400, Woundy, Richard wrote: > How about: > > (Probability of picking peer X) := (Prov.BW of peer X) / (Sum prov.BW) better. :) though getting BW info for all peers might be unrealistic > Or here's a totally different idea. The client states a bandwidth > floor and the server/service eliminates peers without at least that > much provisioned bandwidth??? The ALTO reqs draft already says: 5.3. Performance-related rating criteria o The minimum achievable throughput between the resource consumer and the candidate resource provider, which is considered useful by the application (only in ALTO queries), or o An arbitrary upper bound for the throughput from/to the candidate resource provider (only in ALTO replies). This may be, but is not necessarily the provisioned access bandwidth of the candidate resource provider. ... The ALTO client MUST be aware, that with high probability, the actual performance values differ significantly from these upper and lower bounds. In particular, an ALTO client MUST NOT consider the "upper bound for throughput" parameter as a permission to send data at the indicated rate without using congestion control mechanisms. ... Nevertheless, these rating criteria may provide a useful shortcut for quickly excluding candidate resource providers from such probing, if it is known in advance that connectivity is in any case worse than what is considered the minimum useful value by the respective application. -- Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
