To elaborate a bit, (a) can only be provided by the ISP by definition (nobody else really knows the ISP's network and business policies), while (b) and (c) are, if I understand you correctly, both currently being done using internal communications within the p2p applications using their existing protocols. IMO, standardizing (a) is very important because it allows ISPs to provide information to applications that that they can't otherwise get (e.g. ISP policies) or can only derive in complex, inaccurate ways (e.g. using hop counts to approximate network locality).
- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
mobile: 646/465-0570
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa.dusseault@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: p2pi@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:39:57 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani <vkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's plenty of work to do in a). My recommendation based on estimation of appropriate scope as well as an estimation of the consensus here, would be to do that first -- to have a charter that is scoped to (a). Then the possibilities for (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG. Another option would be a future charter update for ALTO if it's successful and there's consensus for it to be the basis for (b).
Lisa
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:I believe that incorporating (b) expands the charter quite a bit,Peer selection is important to ISPs from a network utilization perspective and to peers themselves from a performance perspective. That automatically makes peer selection a function of multiple aspects - a) information that some service providers may decide to share with the peers, b) information that peers decide to make available about themselves to other peers for this purpose, and, c) any measurements peers may do on their own. The current charter definition (and from what I can tell based on your response below) only seems to allow for a). I would agree that c) is out of scope of
ALTO and something that peers can additionally do. I strongly believe that b) should be part of the ALTO work.
whereas the consensus since the first BoF was for narrowing
it down. I will also note that the feedback expressed on the
list does not appear to view ALTO as a peer description protocol.
To be sure, I am not unsympathetic to (b), it seems like a great
problem to solve, it's just that ALTO may not be the best place
to solve this problem.
In the end, maybe the ADs can decide a way forward.
There's plenty of work to do in a). My recommendation based on estimation of appropriate scope as well as an estimation of the consensus here, would be to do that first -- to have a charter that is scoped to (a). Then the possibilities for (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG. Another option would be a future charter update for ALTO if it's successful and there's consensus for it to be the basis for (b).
Lisa
_______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf