Subject: Re: [p2pi] Refining the ALTO problem statement

From: Laird Popkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:30:59 -0400 (EDT)

- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
  mobile: 646/465-0570

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Eggert" <[email-masked]>
To: "ext Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], "ext Stanislav Shalunov" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:00:41 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Refining the ALTO problem statement

Hi,

On 2008-6-27, at 15:41, ext Laird Popkin wrote:
> I think that we're all in violent agreement in the distinction  
> between long-term network status (e.g. topology, capacity, distance,  
> cost) and transient status (e.g. congestion).

I think we are, although I'd question whether capacity is long-term  
status. If you mean capacity as in "the potential capacity of the  
bottleneck link along a path", then probably yes, but if you mean  
"currently available bottleneck capacity", then likely not.

LP: I was thinking of "capacity that an ISP wants to direct P2P through", which would be a combination of typical available capacity and business policies (e.g. run p2p through peering links to balance traffic, keep p2p downloads off of links intended for VOIP). This information would be slowly changing, perhaps varying by time of day (e.g. daytime and nighttime traffic are different) or as network physical infrastructure is deployed (or links go down, etc.).

> I believe that there is also value in exposing "last mile" link  
> status (and capacity, quotas, etc.) to applications to assist them  
> in making better decisions (e.g. avoiding 'last mile' link  
> congestion, avoiding running consumers over their quotas, etc.). So  
> while arguably last-mile link congestion is a "transport layer"  
> issue, if it's not addressed elsewhere, perhaps ALTO should address  
> it?

ALTO, as a BOF targeted at the RAI and APP areas, is not the right  
place to discuss these issues. Transport area topics do need to be  
discussed in transport area meetings.

The original proposal for the transport-area TANA BOF, which came out  
before there was public information about ALTO, had a similar work  
item, because it seemed likely after the P2PI workshop that folks  
would want to discuss mechanisms related to transient network status.  
When the ALTO proposal was submitted, the ADs decided it would make  
more sense to split the work items identified at the P2PI workshop  
into things for TANA and things for ALTO, but it was at least my  
understanding that this split came with an agreement that obviously  
transport-related topics would be out of scope for ALTO.

LP: Thanks, this is very helpful. I wasn't clear on the distinction between ALTO and TANA BOF's - the descriptions in the email archives seem to overlap somewhat. Is there a list of which items from the P2Pi Workshop are ALTO and which are TANA?

Is there a TANA BOF meeting scheduled? If both TANA and ALTO are on the agenda in Dublin, that'd be convenient. :-)

Lars
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:41:22 -0500

Laird Popkin wrote:
> LP: Thanks, this is very helpful. I wasn't clear on the distinction
> between ALTO and TANA BOF's - the descriptions in the email archives
> seem to overlap somewhat. Is there a list of which items from the
> P2Pi Workshop are ALTO and which are TANA?

Laird: I believe that figuring out what things go on the ALTO list
and what things go on the TANA list will be one of the
things to be done at the BoFs in Dublin.  So far, we have the
high level characterization that Lars had posted to the p2pi
mailing list shortly after the MIT workshop (please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00068.html).
 From that email, (3) is deemed to be within the purview of
ALTO and (1) TANA.  (2) could conceivably be split up as
a set of guideline documents, some applicable to TANA and
others to ALTO.

> Is there a TANA BOF meeting scheduled? If both TANA and ALTO are on
> the agenda in Dublin, that'd be convenient. :-)

Both the BoFs have been approved by their respective ADs, and are
now with the agenda director, waiting to match time slots that
minimize overlaps with other WGs and AD availability.

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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:10:39 +0300

Hi,

On 2008-6-27, at 17:41, ext Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> ALTO and (1) TANA.

Exactly.

>  (2) could conceivably be split up as

I think the current plan is to discuss (2) during TANA, but that  
doesn't necessarily mean that any follow-up will need to only happen  
in whatever comes out of the TANA BOF.

> minimize overlaps with other WGs and AD availability.

Yup. Scheduling this will be a mess. The secretariat is currently  
working out things.

Ideally, we'd schedule TSVAREA first, because it has an overview talk  
by Stas on how BitTorrent transports data, which not everyone in the  
IETF community is very familiar with, and which could provide some  
background knowledge to the wider community before they go off to  
participate in TANA and ALTO. Those two BOFs obviously MUST NOT  
conflict.

Lars

---

From: Stanislav Shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:36:26 -0700

> the agenda in Dublin, that'd be convenient. :-)

TANA is not yet scheduled, but should be soon now.  And last-mile  
congestion is totally within scope for TANA.

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov
http://shlang.com