Stefano, On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:45:45AM +0100, stefano previdi wrote: > On Feb 1, 2012, at 11:49 PM, Sebastian Kiesel wrote: > >> Not that I'm advocating this but it all depends on where > >> do you want to place the complexity of topology hint: inside ALTO > >> server (ECS like of approach) or inside the application (Maps that > >> allows you to compute paths/trees). > > > > Maybe part of the confusion is that we need a clear definition what > > end-to-end is. I'd say that ALTO should always give the end-to-end > > costs for sending IP packets between two endpoints using "normal" > > IP-layer forwarding. Based on that knowledge one can of course > > build efficient paths/trees that involve proxies, media relays > > or the like (i.e., this higher-layer path is a concatenation of > > several IP-layer end-to-end paths). Does this make sense? > > > why do you believe alto should only deliver end-to-end costs ? > In a slightly different context it could even deliver a path.
what exactly do you mean by "deliver a path"? And would that require that a host and/or the ALTO server can influence how packets travel through the network (source routing, take actively part in OSPF/BGP/... , etc)? > there are case other than p2p or cdn. Think about cloud > networking, data center resources advertisement and distribution, > DNS optimizations, Demand Engineering, ... > > If we want to think about extending alto to other (non p2p) case, > these are interesting examples. sure. extending the scope of ALTO makes sense. but what is different to the P2P use case? One difference is that - as Rich pointed out - due to other trust relationships we may be able to expose more information. OK, but how do we use it? Is this more than just shifting complexity? Thanks, Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
