Re: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol

Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net> Wed, 27 August 2008 17:35 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 3D64028C1A8; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:35:39 -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 662BF28C1A8 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 O1OiXVJPcX0w for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D73628C0E6 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.228.6]) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:35:32 PDT
Received: from antipi.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.34]) by p-emsmtp03.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:20:07 -0700
Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by antipi.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:20:06 -0400
Received: from 172.23.1.107 ([172.23.1.107]) by proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:20:06 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.12.0.080729
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:19:51 -0700
From: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net>
To: David R Oran <oran@cisco.com>, p2pi@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C4DADAC7.EAE5%rpenno@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [p2pi] Information in an ALTO protocol
Thread-Index: AckIaR0gjGskvjjzf0uwyiqKQ2FHuw==
In-Reply-To: <BEEA9A6E-26F6-4314-B4B5-EB6396BA3DCF@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2008 17:20:06.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[26938480:01C90869]
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

I would like to also point out that we should strive to make ALTO as NAT
friendly as possible.

Thanks,

Reinaldo


On 8/25/08 12:25 PM, "David R Oran" <oran@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 
>> Fabio Hecht wrote:
>>> in this case, would an ALTO Server query other ALTO Servers to gather
>>> this information? Because, from an ISP point of view, the ALTO Server
>>> would not know what the last-hop bandwidth is for every other peer.
>>> Would the protocol then be the same used by the overlay applications?
>> 
>> Fabio: At this point, not much thought has been given to an Inter-ALTO
>> server protocol or what its form may be.  We are trying to get our
>> hands around the needed information that could serve as the building
>> block for an ALTO server - ALTO client protocol.
>> 
> This is only tangentially related to the main topic of this thread,
> but since it occurred to me on reading this exchange about server
> chaining I thought I'd mention it here:
> 
> Many client/server protocols are were initially designed to be
> strictly two party, with no architectural support for proxies or other
> stateful intermediaries (HTTP and RTSP come to mind...there are likely
> many others).
> 
> It may behoove us to build proxy capability into ALTO from day 1,
> since it will almost inevitably have to be added later at some level
> of pain, perhaps large, and almost assuredly some undesirable security
> tradeoffs.
> 
> This probably involves at least the following:
> - separating our end-to-end from ho--by hop (transport layer?) security
> - clear data model separation between things used to "route" requests
> and things used to interpret queries.
> - a flexible addressing model
> - a way to aggregate and summarize in responses
> 
> and likely a bunch of other considerations I'm missing in the above.
> 
> DaveO.
> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> - vijay
>> -- 
>> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
>> 2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
>> Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
>> WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi