Re: [p2pi] Thoughts on how IETF standards can help P2P/ISPs

[stefano previdi <sprevidi at cisco.com>]

> From: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it>
> 
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>> At 3:15 PM -0700 6/2/08, Enrico Marocco wrote:
>>> It seems to me that this turned out to be a two-sided problem.  On the
>>> one hand, it is clear that applications on the endpoints are in the
>>> worst position to make optimal network decisions; a first part of the
>>> solution should thus consist of a mechanism to defer such decisions to
>>> external entities
>> 
>> Of course you can recast this  as "So we should make sure that
>> there are mechanisms that allow them to make more optimal decisions.
>> The facilities which provide this information need not be controlled
>> by the ISPs, but might be third party services which indicate
>> cost/topology/congestion or some profile mix of the three."
> 
> Existing systems today used (or proposed) for optimizing peer selection
> use different methods to make their choices.  While it would be easy to
> define a common interface such systems could expose to p2p applications,
> it would be probably hard to standardize cost/topology/congestion/policy
> notification mechanisms in order to accommodate all different approaches
> adopted by existing and foreseeable solutions.

I agree with the addition that ietf could work on standardization of
extensions/enhancements of existing routing protocols that could be
leveraged by any localization/proximity implementation.

I know at least one implementation that goes towards that direction...

s.

> 
> Examples of existing systems are Vivaldi and Ono, embedded in 10^5~10^6
> Azureus clients out there, P4P, iPlane, PIC and many others, simulated
> and emulated in friendly environments.
> 
>> To my way of thinking, that makes it easier to consider the API
>> design, as it is not so much an API that says "What's the best
>> choice right now?"  but "What's the best X (flow pattern, topology,
>> price)".  The second set of questions is sufficiently more modular
>> that it is both easier to get right and, at least in my opinion,
>> more interesting.
> 
> Well, I'd probably prefer a compromise between the two, something like
> "What's the best choice for downloading X Mb of delay-sensitive data?".
> And, just to be clear, available options must be provided by the
> application which, at the end of the day, will be also in charge of
> making the final decision (including ignoring the answer if for some
> reason it doesn't like it).
> 
> -- 
> Ciao,
> Enrico
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> p2pi at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi


_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi