Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol
Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com> Thu, 14 August 2008 21:10 UTC
Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034563A685C; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918A23A67E7 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI=-8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZdBLvokN8vw7 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [67.99.55.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD243A6801 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2EEE10A97; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:10:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from dkny.pando.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dkny.pando.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmfF9b3PT5Td; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [10.10.60.11]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819C6E10BA5; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:10:04 -0400
From: Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Message-ID: <326422674.153451218748204493.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080814204249.GS25453@verdi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [69.38.142.83]
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
This is a very good discussion. Responding to the comment that topology is "Useful, but hard to use without latency measurments (and IMHO also indicators of congestion)." I would agree that a realtime, detailed topology would be very hard to provide. But even a broad, static topology has a lot of value, and that's easier to provide. That is, if an ISP can provide a list of IP prefixes that identify users in a metro area, and adjacent metro areas, we can connect people based on that and improve performance and efficiency, without knowing anything about the physical network or individual link status. Also keep in mind that ALTO only guides initial peer selection (i.e. the endpoints of the streams). The transport layer (BGP, etc.) guides the actual routing of the data, and the applications adapt based on observed throughput. So ALTO doesn't have to solve everything (congestion, real-time conditions) to be useful - it just has to be better than not knowing anything. - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Leslie" <john@jlc.net> To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> Cc: p2pi@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 1:42:49 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Vijay K. Gurbani <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > > I think that which parameters to gather will turn out to be an > interesting topic to nail down. Interesting, certainly; but IMHO unwise to nail down too tightly. > At present, we have the following discrete pieces of information > mentioned in the post-BoF charter: > > (1) Routing preferences > (2) Priority values These are a bit amorphous... > (3) AS numbers Sometimes very useful; sometimes not... > (4) Geographic location Often wildly inaccurate, and even more often quite unrelated to network topology. Would be _very_ useful in an alternate universe where routing found next-hops _physically_ closer to the destination... > Add to this the two more: > > (5) Policies Clearly potentially useful > (6) Topology Useful, but hard to use without latency measurments (and IMHO also indicators of congestion). > 1, 2, and 5 are something that the network operator is in possession > of. Each BGP router will have these, very likely reflecting configuration choices of the ISP. But I'm not convinced they're useful unless you know you'll pass through that router. Even then, what you actually experience is the aggregate of all routers you pass through... > 3 and 4 can be gleaned in some manner (probably not using > any standardized APIs but well known services, nonetheless.) AS numbers are reasonably accurately gleaned; geographic location is not nearly as accurate. > 6 can be provided by the network operator or approximated using > synthetic coordinate systems and the like. Actual topology is likely to change without warning; so you should be prepared for it to prove wildly inaccurate. More often than not, it turns out to be only roughly approximated or hopelessly optimistic. > Information that has been deemed out of scope based on list > discussion is: > > (1) Last hop bandwidth The most useful number yet listed, _if_ folks will give it to us and we interpret it correctly... > (reason: too much uncertainty -- are we talking about upload or > download bandwidth? Both, of course (though too often the upstream dominates). > Provisioned band-width or current snapshot? Provisioned, of course (though it would be good to know penalty-box bandwidth too) > User privacy concerns, ISP marketing concerns, etc. These are by no means limited to last-hop bandwidth. _Any_ question we might ask might generate a "none of your business" reply -- we need to allow for that. Besides, last-hop bandwidth (provisioned) can't really be hidden. If the ISP doesn't want to provide it, a third party can... > In short, while this is a good research problem, it may not be a > good piece of information to be provided by ALTO.) We'd be foolish to design a protocol which _isn't_ also good as a research tool. _Every_ content supplier will want research done. IMHO, ruling out anything except content-IDs (if insufficiently obfuscated to be of no interest to DCMA lawyers) is unwise. OTOH, expecting _any_ particular query to always receive a useful reply is naive. > What other sort of information should be a focus of ALTO? It would be rather useful to have "characteristics that indicate congestion" on a path. The applications are going to have to judge instantaneous congestion anyway, and basing that judgment on known characteristics rather than guesswork should speed progress towards an optimal mix. Jitter in the latency will be of interest to certain applications. -- John Leslie <john@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
- [p2pi] After-BoF charter Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter David R Oran
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter David R Oran
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Bob Briscoe
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Bob Briscoe
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Bruce Davie
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Stanislav Shalunov
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Bob Briscoe
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Yu-Shun Wang
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol John Leslie
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Bob Briscoe
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Bob Briscoe
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Stanislav Shalunov
- Re: [p2pi] After-BoF charter Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol Woundy, Richard