> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cain, Brad [mailto:bcain@cereva.com]
> > 3. Abbie's proposal
> actually, isn't this similar in concept to #2
No I do not think so, in particular with respect to your quote
> ... the only difference here is
> that the final circuit (e.g. the set of hops) is returned
> to the originator so that the final hop can be returned
> (and of course intermediate state isn't kept)
> > 4. Abbie's proposal as I understood it first..... .
> i assume that the authoritative CDN makes all decisions (based
> on the link state information)? #1 would be the degenerate case?
>
yes and no. You can restrict it to the authoritative CDN or allow for rerouting
> should the authoritative request routing CDN always make the
> final decision or should it be allowed to "hand-off" the decision?
I think it should be able to hand-off the decision.
> if the decision is centralized then it makes the problem fairly easy...
> you could make a strong argument for
> centralized decisions due to the business relationships in
> content distribution.. furthermore you can make an argument
> that routing the request introduces too much delay and that
> the authoritative domain should make the decision
>
The ability to route should be there.
> i propose a 5th solution which is:
>
> - topology advertisements are distributed/flooded in a loop
> free manner
> - routing decisions are NOT SPECIFIED. in the common case the
> authoritative domain makes the final decision with all of the
> topology information ( = easy loop freedom!)
-- above are similar to the matrix appraoch
> - requests that are routed to another CDN must not be
> routed further (ie. restricted two-level hierarchy)
-- this is option 1
abbie