Hi Sebastian, On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don't think we need an extension to the discovery procedure for that. > As I said, I think it would just shift the problem, not solve it. > > In a deployment scenario where a network operator actually can clearly > decide that some group of hosts "A" should use map_A as default > (unless they know better and want to override it) and group "B" should > use map_B, they can configure two IRDs, e.g. > altoserver.isp.example/A/ird and altoserver.isp.example/B/ird > and let the discovery procedure return the right URI for the each > group member. > > Then, the altoserver.isp.example/A/ird must express that map_A is > the default map for all clients that have discovered this IRD. > The ALTO protocol must provide the possibility to express that. > > I see two ways to express this in the ALTO protocol (not through another configuration channel): (1) prune: delete map_B from the IRD given to hosts "A", and delete map_A from the IRD given to hosts "B". This assumes that each hosts group needs only one map, e.g., a fish-eye map for each of the two coasts. (2) mark one as the default, which I believe that we will add as a consensus on the mailing list. In other words, the IRD page is still dynamic, depending on the receiver. Which approach to take will then be a deployment's decision. Richard > Sebastian > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:14:17PM +0000, Diego R. Lopez wrote: > > I am not trying to open again the discussion on HTTP-based discovery > > we had some time ago, but it looks to me that situations like the one > > described by Wendy could imply that we'd need some mechanism for > > optionally providing metadata as a result of the initial discovery > > process. Unless I am missing something, this would be a case for an > > extended HTTP-based discovery. > > > > I think we could discuss on this during the extended evening session > > that Enrico announced for Wednesday. > > > > Be goode, > > > > On 24 Jul 2013, at 09:48 , Sebastian Kiesel wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 04:52:35PM -0400, Wendy Roome wrote: > > >> Here's why an IRD returned by ALTO discovery must must have a default > > >> network map. Consider an ALTO client that gets the server URI via > discovery. > > >> By definition, a discovery client must be provider-independent. > Because > > >> resource ID names are provider-specific, a discovery client cannot be > > >> pre-configured with a map ID. Hence any IRD returned by discovery > MUST mark > > >> one of its maps as the default. If not, a discovery client can't > decide > > >> which network map to use. > > >> > > >> Of course, there'd be no problem if ALTO discovery could return a map > ID as > > >> well as a URI. But I gather that's not possible. > > > > > > The current discovery procedures do not support that, and it seems to > me > > > that this would only move the problem to another subsystem instead of > > > solving it - if you cannot decide which map to mark as default in the > > > IRD, how could you decide which map name to indicate as default using a > > > to-be-defined extension of the discovery mechanism? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
