draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-04.txt   draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-05.txt 
Network Working Group S. Randriamasy Network Working Group S. Randriamasy
Internet-Draft W. Roome Internet-Draft W. Roome
Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Bell Labs Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Bell Labs
Expires: March 16, 2017 N. Schwan Expires: August 26, 2017 N. Schwan
Thales Deutschland Thales Deutschland
September 12, 2016 February 22, 2017
Multi-Cost ALTO Multi-Cost ALTO
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-04 draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-05
Abstract Abstract
The ALTO (Application Layer-Traffic Optimization) Protocol The ALTO (Application Layer-Traffic Optimization) Protocol
([RFC7285]) defines several services that return various metrics ([RFC7285]) defines several services that return various metrics
describing the costs between network endpoints. An ALTO Server may describing the costs between network endpoints. An ALTO Server may
offer a variety of cost metrics, based on latency,bandwidth, hop offer a variety of cost metrics, based on latency,bandwidth, hop
count, jitter, or whatever else the ALTO Server deems useful. For count, jitter, or whatever else the ALTO Server deems useful. For
example, when downloading a file that is mirrored on several sites, a example, when downloading a file that is mirrored on several sites, a
user application may consider more than one metric, perhaps trading user application may consider more than one metric, perhaps trading
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
considerably more efficient. In addition, this document extends the considerably more efficient. In addition, this document extends the
ALTO constraint tests to allow a user to specify an arbitrary logical ALTO constraint tests to allow a user to specify an arbitrary logical
combination of tests on several cost metrics. combination of tests on several cost metrics.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview Of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Overview Of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy ALTO Clients . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Compatibility With Legacy ALTO Clients . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. Full Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6. Extended Constraint Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.1. Extended constraint predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6.1. Extended constraint predicates . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.2. Extended logical combination of predicates . . . . . . 9 3.6.2. Extended logical combination of predicates . . . . . 8
3.6.3. Testable Cost Types in constraints . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6.3. Testable Cost Types in constraints . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6.4. Testable Cost Type Names in IRD capabilities . . . . . 10 3.6.4. Testable Cost Type Names in IRD capabilities . . . . 9
3.6.5. Legacy ALTO Client issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6.5. Legacy ALTO Client issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions . . . . . 12 4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions . . . . 11
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Information Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1. Information Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1 . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1 . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2 . . . . . . . . . 22 5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2 . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3 . . . . . . . . . 24 5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3 . . . . . . . . 23
5.5. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #4 . . . . . . . . . 25 5.5. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #4 . . . . . . . . 24
5.6. Endpoint Cost Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.6. Endpoint Cost Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Privacy And Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Privacy And Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IETF has defined ALTO services in [RFC7285] to provide guidance to IETF has defined ALTO services in [RFC7285] to provide guidance to
overlay applications, which have to select one or several hosts from overlay applications, which have to select one or several hosts from
a set of candidates that are able to provide a desired resource. a set of candidates that are able to provide a desired resource.
This guidance is based on parameters such as the topological This guidance is based on parameters such as the topological
distance, that affect performance and efficiency of the data distance, that affect performance and efficiency of the data
transmission between the hosts. The purpose of ALTO is to improve transmission between the hosts. The purpose of ALTO is to improve
Quality of Experience (QoE) in the application while reducing Quality of Experience (QoE) in the application while reducing
skipping to change at page 28, line 40 skipping to change at page 27, line 40
} }
"ipv6:2001:db8::1:0": { "ipv6:2001:db8::1:0": {
"ipv4:198.51.100.34": [16, 5], "ipv4:198.51.100.34": [16, 5],
"ipv6:2001:db8::10": [10, 2] "ipv6:2001:db8::10": [10, 2]
} }
} }
} }
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does define any new media types or introduce any new This document does not define any new media types or introduce any
IANA considerations. new IANA considerations.
7. Privacy And Security Considerations 7. Privacy And Security Considerations
This document does introduce any privacy or security issues not This document does not introduce any privacy or security issues not
already present in the ALTO protocol. already present in the ALTO protocol.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Richard Alimi, Fred Baker, Dhruv The authors would like to thank Richard Alimi, Fred Baker, Dhruv
Dhodi, Vijay Gurbani, Dave Mac Dysan, Young Lee, Richard Yang, for Dhodi, Vijay Gurbani, Dave Mac Dysan, Young Lee, Richard Yang, for
fruitful discussions and feedback on this document and previous fruitful discussions and feedback on this document and previous
versions. Gao Kai, Hans Seidel, Richard Yang, Qiao Xiang and Wang versions. Gao Kai, Hans Seidel, Richard Yang, Qiao Xiang and Wang
Xin provided substantial review feedback and suggestions to the Xin provided substantial review feedback and suggestions to the
protocol design. protocol design.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
[RFC5693] "Application Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Statement", October 2009.
[RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S., [RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S.,
Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application-Layer Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application-Layer
Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, September
September 2014. 2014.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC5693] "Application Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem
Statement", October 2009.
[RFC6708] "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) [RFC6708] "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
Requirements", February 2012. Requirements", February 2012.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Sabine Randriamasy Sabine Randriamasy
Nokia Bell Labs Nokia Bell Labs
Route de Villejust Route de Villejust
NOZAY 91460 NOZAY 91460
FRANCE FRANCE
Email: Sabine.Randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com Email: Sabine.Randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com
Wendy Roome Wendy Roome
Nokia Bell Labs Nokia Bell Labs
600 Mountain Ave, Rm 3B-324 124 Burlington Rd
Murray Hill, NJ 07974 Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA USA
Phone: +1-908-582-7974 Email: ietf@wdroome.com
Email: w.roome@nokia-bell-labs.com
Nico Schwan Nico Schwan
Thales Deutschland Thales Deutschland
Lorenzstrasse 10 Lorenzstrasse 10
Stuttgart 70435 Stuttgart 70435
Germany Germany
Email: nico.schwan@thalesgroup.com Email: nico.schwan@thalesgroup.com
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/