Haibin, > OK. Then how about using your and Sebastian's suggested > general statement about using the client's communication IP > address, and highlight proxy based with one or two sentences?
This looks like a reasonable idea. > I'm not convinced that we should ignore the scenarios when > the above sentences cannot work. Maybe we can give guidance > in the document, that there could be exceptions and using the > text about triangle routing from my original email as an > example. Then we do not go to every exceptions in mobility. > I'm not familiar with all the mobility technologies, but some > will not impact ALTO discovery such as HIP which is a 3.5 > layer technology. Does that make sense and look like a > simple way to handle it in the draft? The draft has to be updated anyway, given the feedback in the last meeting. Certainly, triangular routing can be mentioned as an example for a specific challenge. As a side note: AFAIK, HIP decouples the application and the IP stack, i. e., the application may not easily know what IP address is actually used by the protocol stack (there may be work-arounds, of course). I guess that this could actually be a quite significant obstacle for ALTO if an app needs the IP address to get ALTO guidance. Anyway, I think that this should be out-of-scope. Michael _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
