On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:25:33AM -0700, Richard Alimi wrote: > Okay - without detracting from the original comment, it sounds like we > both agree that the NxN matrix can be a reasonable request for an ALTO > Client to make.
ACK. > I agree that the quality of information (and whether > the ALTO Server provides certain cost types for addresses outside of > its administrative domain) is going to vary depending on many factors. Let me rephrase my original point: If an ALTO client in an application running at the resource consumer asks its ISP's ALTO server for guidance related to its own topological location, the answer will be a (Mx1)-matrix (Vector). A tracker, in contrast, would be interested in the (NxN)-matrix. I'd say that usually M can be much higher than N, with high-quality data. Of course, the gut feeling "M >> N" does not allow any direct conclusion whether tranmission of a (NxN) could become a problem. > FWIW, I fully expect there to be ALTO Clients out there who will crawl > all publicly-available ALTO Servers and do data mining on that > aggregated set. iPlane is an example of gathering data on a global > scale without ALTO, and I would imagine that ALTO would only serve as > another helpful input. But that is a separate question from the size > of a map of a single ALTO Server. ACK. -- Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
