Ben, all, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 09:06:18AM +0000, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Sebastian, > > On 25 Mar 2013, at 08:31, Sebastian Kiesel wrote: > > > 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. > > Are you suggesting the default cost replace the unknown cost semantic > or that we keep the unknown cost semantic and add an additional > default cost semantic?
Both options would work for me as I personally do not see much use of the "undefined" semantic. On the other hand, adding the "cost-default" as an optional feature seems less disruptive wrt. existing implementations and then we could support both the "undefined" and the "default" semantics, so I think the proposal is: add it as an option, i.e., if "cost-default" is present all omitted entries in the cost map are assigned this value, otherwise they are undefined. Thanks Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
