From sprevidi@cisco.com Thu Jun 9 03:16:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D8B11E8071 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 03:16:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JaK+Fk9Hr9UI for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 03:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DCC11E80B5 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p59AGdqc027173 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:16:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dhcp-rom2-144-254-189-100.cisco.com (dhcp-rom2-144-254-189-100.cisco.com [144.254.189.100]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p59AGYR7010551; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:16:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: From: stefano previdi To: p2prg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:16:34 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: Volker Hilt Subject: [p2prg] P2PRG Meeting in Quebec (IETF81) X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:16:42 -0000 Folks, we are planning a P2PRG meeting in Quebec (July 24-29) during IETF-81 (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/81/index.html) Please come back to us asap if you'd like to have a slot in the agenda. Thanks. Stefano & Volker From panda@hongo.wide.ad.jp Sun Jun 19 22:06:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BB911E8142 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:06:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.904 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dt5+DTFp+4D6 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp [203.178.135.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C92911E80F1 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:180:8000::2]) by mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 682F3108E872; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:06:51 +0900 (JST) From: Hirochika Asai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:06:51 +0900 To: p2prg@irtf.org Message-Id: <19C37C51-3374-4061-9ADE-4D7903869A23@hongo.wide.ad.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [p2prg] I-D update: draft-asai-cross-domain-overlay-02 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:06:58 -0000 Dear p2prg folks, Upon receiving valuable comments during the previous IETF at Prague, we = have updated our I-D about "Global Cost Mapping for AS-Level = Application-Layer Traffic Optimization" (the title has been changed in this version). One of the comments was that one has got similar results to ours; a = problem with cross-domain policy conflicts like so-called hot-potato occurs without cross-domain cooperation. In this update, we suggest to deploy global cost map and implement = hierarchical architecture into the ALTO protocol and scheme. Now this draft lacks of specification of the protocol extension, so can you, p2prg folks, please = make comments on that ALTO extension part? I hope that this will give good = feedbacks to the ALTO, although now it does not exactly fit the ALTO WG charter. # Note that the ALTO WG charter contains the cross-domain traffic = problem but it # does not mention inter-domain routing policies. Best regards, Hirochika --=20 Hirochika Asai , The University of Tokyo