On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 02:55:05PM +0100, stefano previdi wrote: > On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Sebastian Kiesel wrote: > > 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)? > > > well, I don't go that far. However, an application may ask for network > guidance and get some preferences (rankings) computed by an alto server > that goes along with some form of path description associated to that > preference.
and what would the application do with that additional information? if it is used for re-calculating ALTO's preferences, why can't that be done in the ALTO server in the first place? Thanks, Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
