Hi,
On 2008-10-10, at 15:00, ext Marshall Eubanks wrote:
considered for prioritizing standardization work, for example the
number of operators and clients that are likely to be able to provide
or use that particular data. In any case, this WG will not propose
standards on how congestion is signaled, remediated, or avoided, and
Does this mean that congestion is not an issue to consider ?
If the closest peer to me was totally congested and had no available
bandwidth, isn't that something that I would want to know ?
I think the intent here is actually fine. ALTO attempts to improve the
initial peer selection over simply choosing peers randomly by making
some information available before this selection happens.
The information provided through ALTO can't - in my opinion - include
very detailed or timely load or congestion information, because I
remain unconvinced that the ALTO system could actually obtain and
maintain this information on the timescales it would need to.
But there's other information that could be useful, such as some
coarse-grained "this peer is not totally on the other side of the
planet"-like information. Assuming that throughput and distance are by
and large inversely proportional, preferring closer peers should often
be better than choosing totally randomly. Other kinds of useful
information could be "talking to this peer doesn't count towards your
bandwidth quota", etc.
Now, once you actually establish and use a transport connection with
the ALTO-recommended peer, you may well find that throughput is low.
So you ditch the peer and try another one, which P2P systems already
do. The intent here isn't that ALTO would pick the globally optimal
peers for you, the intent is that it'll help an application reach a
good set of peers a bit more quickly.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf