Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
communications. In fact, all that is important in this context is
that the overlay acts as a rendezvous for sharing such information.
I think the disconnect we may be having is that you view
ALTO as a peer description protocol; it is not. Other
protocols like BitTorrent, for example, are more suited to
this, and they do exactly what you want. In a BitTorrent
overlay (swarm), the overlay knows exactly which peer is
contributing which content, which peer has which chunks,
the download/upload ratio, the time the peer joined the swarm,
whether the peer is choked or unchoked, whether the peer has
a public port, etc. ALTO is not out to replace BitTorrent. What
ALTO is providing are better strategies for peer selection.
For instance, it is not ALTO that gets to decide which peer is
hosting which content and what the contributions of that peer
to the overlay are. However, it is ALTO's job to provide
information to a querying peer allowing it to determine wisely
where it will download the content from.
I'm afraid that would be a mistake. It actually doesn't matter if we
don't agree today on the exact types of information that can be
shared. It is important that we have a protocol that allows peers to
publish ALTO related information. Having this protocol be
extensible would allow for any type of information to be carried in
So far, no one on the list has proposed that ALTO be a peer
description and publication protocol. So based on the discussion
we have had since (essentially the workshop in) May 2008 on the
p2pi list, I would hesitate to add in the charter something that
participants have not expressed any preference for (i.e., a
deliverable on peers publishing their information.)
IMHO, not every type of information can be carried in the ALTO protocol, but
only network policy and topology related (e.g. peer preference) information
is allowed. I don't think we are designing BitTorrent here.
Ietf mailing list