Dear all,
draft-ietf-alto-protocol-14, section 9.1.2.5. says: "An ALTO Server MAY
omit entries for which a Path Cost is not defined (e.g., both the Source
and Destination PIDs contain addresses outside of the Network Provider's
administrative domain)."
I think it would be beneficial to have an (optional) method of specifying
a default value in the header of the map.
For example, in today's encoding:
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
{
"meta" : {},
"data" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-type" : "routingcost",
"map-vtag" : "1266506139",
"map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": 10, "PID2": 5, "PID3": 10 },
"PID2": { "PID1": 5, "PID2": 10, "PID3": 20 },
"PID3": { "PID1": 10, "PID2": 20, "PID3": 10 }
}
}
}
could become:
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
{
"meta" : {},
"data" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-type" : "routingcost",
"cost-default" : 10,
"map-vtag" : "1266506139",
"map" : {
"PID1": { "PID2": 5 },
"PID2": { "PID1": 5, "PID3": 20 },
"PID3": { "PID2": 20 }
}
}
}
The motivation is, that for most src/dst-pairs I don't know the costs,
i.e., all I can say is "try and see what happens". But I know some
src/dst-pairs where I assume lower costs as well as some pairs where I
expect higher costs. So I would like being able to express "this should
be better-than-random" and "this should be worse-than-random". Assuming
that all omitted entries are 0 or INT_MAX (or FLOAT_MAX) doesn't help.
Comments?
Thanks
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
