On 01/31/2012 09:29 AM, stefano previdi wrote:
there are a variety of cases where this would be useful. When you
distribute a link-state topology you know you're talking about
routers and links and semantic is well-known. Same when you advertise
BGP routes or VPNv4 routes or whatever... the protocol has the
semantic you need to consider.
Stefano: True.
In ALTO you have the necessary bits to tell if cost is based on
routing or air miles or others but you don't really know what a PID
is (other than a bunch of addresses).
That was a strategic design decision, as far as I can recall.
A PID abstracted a collection of some hosts, the collection
being defined by the entity populating such a collection in
a network map and cost map for the consumption of the ALTO
server.
Now, there is nothing that stops us from having a singleton
host --- a router --- be in its own PID and then show that
PID as being reachable from other PIDs. This affects the
case that Ben may be thinking about ... Ben?
yes, I _tend_ to agree... until we find disagreement of course ;-)
Of course. To be sure, I am not disagreeing with you; just
trying to add to the discussion.
Ciao,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
