Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)

Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com> Wed, 15 October 2008 19:34 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 828913A6C23; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:34:39 -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 243983A6C23; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.264
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI=-8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NGJmXJR-vbC0; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [67.99.55.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC69E3A6A51; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB31E10B3F; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:35:31 -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 yCiWnHyIcO6c; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [10.10.60.11]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D0DE10B19; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1794728186.370661224099319579.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca722a9e0810151139q29705f8bm9e02ab5eb0dd27ec@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [10.10.20.77]
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1138344074=="
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

I agree that (a) is where ALTO should focus. 


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@gmail.com> 
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> 
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org 
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@alcatel-lucent.com > wrote: 



Narayanan, Vidya wrote: 




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. 

I believe that incorporating (b) expands the charter quite a bit, 
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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi