On Apr 18, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Jan Medved wrote:
On 4/15/11 10:10 AM, "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I think this really depends on the particular service provider's
network.
When I look at how service providers are requesting automatic
topology
import into our CDN product some are requesting ALTO, some are
requesting just BGP and some are certainly requesting that we
listen to
both BGP and the IGP.
This actually underlines the need for standardizing what data is
acquired
from the network, how the data is normalized, and how the ALTO server
acquires topology data from the network.
I don't think we need to define what exact piece of information alto
should retrieve but rather how to formalize a link-state, TE or bgp
topology into an api so it can be retrieved independently from routing
layer operations and deployed protocols.
If the ALTO server can accurately
reflect the topology of the underlying network, there is no need for
the
CDN to listen to routing protocols.
but the CDN does NOT listen to routing protocols anyway. The ALTO server
does it and CDN only interoperates with ALTO.
All the CDN needs to do is to
interface with the ALTO Server, which makes the CDN implementation a
lot
simpler.
again: this happens today when ALTO plays routing protocols.
s.
This in turn allows for better interoperability between CDNs and
interoperability between the network and different CDNs operating on
top
of
it.
Protocol selection aside, this discussion should be about the APIs and
utility of standardizing the map exchange. WRT the discussion of the
Network API: the pro is that ALTO servers will have the same
information,
the con is that they won't and have a technology with different maps
and
views of the network.
/Jan
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
