Subject: Re: [ppsp] comment about PPSP requirement

From: Ning Zong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:10:16 +0900

Hi, Softgear,

I would say that PPSP tracker may use ALTO protocol to get the network preference for selecting peers. PPSP tracker protocol itself just return the better-than-random peer list.

BR,
Ning Zong

======= At 2009-11-10, 18:12:14 you wrote: =======

>Hi,
>
>Oops. PPSP.TP.REQ-6 carry the configuration and the status of the peer was already in PPSP.TP.REQ-4. Sorry for confusing. However, I think the virtual/physical location of the peer should be carried between the tracker and peers 
>
>- Softgear Ko
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ko, Seokkap
>Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:49 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ppsp] comment about PPSP requirement
>
>Hello.
> 
>To consider proximity between peer or to select better peer list in the swarm, peer provides additional information than just IP address. For example, network coordination. The current PPSP requirement (draft-zong-ppsp-reqs-02) doesn't mention about this. Of course, map from IP address to network coordination is possible. but, providing its network coordinate to tracker or peers is better and faster. For generality, I don't say just network coordinate information. It also includes bandwidth, capacity, constraints, and so on. These additional information helps the tracker to give better initial peer to new peer. And, it can be for peer selection.
> 
>PPSP.TP.REQ-6: PPSP tracker protocol MAY be able to carry the configuration and the status of the peer, e.g. work load, capacity, bandwidth limitation, virtual/physical location etc. A peer MAY report its status to the tracker.
> 
>PPSP.PP.REQ-4: PPSP peer protocol MAY carry the virtual/physical location of the peer. It could be used to select better peers.
> 
>- Softgear Ko
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ppsp mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
			
Ning Zong
[email-masked]
2009-11-10

---

From: "SoftgearKo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:20:16 +0900

Hi, Ning Zong.

Yes, PPSP tracker may use ALTO protocol and we consider it. However, I don't
think that all PPSP tracker can use ALTO protocol. It depends on running
environment. Some PPSP tracker might not use ALTO protocol, i.e. world-wide
tracker or ISP independent tracker. Also, some PPSP tracker and peers may
use network coordinate likes Vivaldi. I suggest that the status of peer in
PPSP.TP.REQ-4 includes network coordinates and physical location.

Does ALTO consider peer selection between peers (not between a peer and a
tracker)? According to my knowledge, The answer is No. However, we can use
additional information about topology or location for peer selection.

By the way, we have to define some terminology about peer selection. Anybody
suggest better terminologies for these?
- initial peer selection : tracker selects peer list for new peer.
- chunk selection : one peer selects a chunk to download from other peer.
This selection strategy is different from file sharing. It has the time
constraint.
- download peer selection : If there are many peer which have a certain
chunk, the peer select one peer among that peers.
- neighbor selection : If a peer get too many peer list from other peers or
the tracker, the peer should dismiss some peers from its neighbor peer list.

Thank you.

- Softgear Ko

-----Original Message-----
From: Ning Zong [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:10 PM
To: SoftgearKo; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re: [ppsp] comment about PPSP requirement

Hi, Softgear,

I would say that PPSP tracker may use ALTO protocol to get the network
preference for selecting peers. PPSP tracker protocol itself just return the
better-than-random peer list.

BR,
Ning Zong

>Hi,
>
>Oops. PPSP.TP.REQ-6 carry the configuration and the status of the peer was
already in PPSP.TP.REQ-4. Sorry for confusing. However, I think the
virtual/physical location of the peer should be carried between the tracker
and peers 
>To consider proximity between peer or to select better peer list in the
swarm, peer provides additional information than just IP address. For
example, network coordination. The current PPSP requirement
(draft-zong-ppsp-reqs-02) doesn't mention about this. Of course, map from IP
address to network coordination is possible. but, providing its network
coordinate to tracker or peers is better and faster. For generality, I don't
say just network coordinate information. It also includes bandwidth,
capacity, constraints, and so on. These additional information helps the
tracker to give better initial peer to new peer. And, it can be for peer
selection.
> 
>PPSP.TP.REQ-6: PPSP tracker protocol MAY be able to carry the configuration
and the status of the peer, e.g. work load, capacity, bandwidth limitation,
virtual/physical location etc. A peer MAY report its status to the tracker.
> 
>PPSP.PP.REQ-4: PPSP peer protocol MAY carry the virtual/physical location
of the peer. It could be used to select better peers.

Ning Zong
[email-masked]
2009-11-10