draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-03.txt   draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-04.txt 
ALTO Working Group Q. Wu ALTO Working Group Q. Wu
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Yang Intended status: Standards Track Y. Yang
Expires: June 25, 2018 Yale University Expires: December 18, 2018 Yale University
Y. Lee Y. Lee
D. Dhody D. Dhody
Huawei Huawei
S. Randriamasy S. Randriamasy
Nokia Bell Labs Nokia Bell Labs
December 22, 2017 June 16, 2018
ALTO Performance Cost Metrics ALTO Performance Cost Metrics
draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-03 draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-04
Abstract Abstract
Cost Metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic Cost Metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO). It is used in both the Cost Map Service and the Optimization (ALTO). It is used in both the Cost Map Service and the
Endpoint Cost Service. Endpoint Cost Service.
Different applications may benefit from different Cost Metrics. For Different applications may benefit from different Cost Metrics. For
example, a Resource Consumer may prefer Resource Providers that offer example, a Resource Consumer may prefer Resource Providers that offer
a low delay delivery to the Resource Consumer. However the base ALTO a low delay delivery to the Resource Consumer. However the base ALTO
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 June 25, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
2.2.1. Configuration Parameters Challenge . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1. Configuration Parameters Challenge . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Availability of end to end path values Challenge . . 6 2.2.2. Availability of end to end path values Challenge . . 6
3. Cost Metric: POWDelay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Cost Metric: POWDelay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Cost Metric: RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Cost Metric: RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Cost Metric: PDV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Cost Metric: PDV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Cost Metric: Hop Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Cost Metric: Hop Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Cost Metric: Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Cost Metric: Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Traffic Engineering Performance Cost Metrics . . . . . . . . 16 8. Traffic Engineering Performance Cost Metrics . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Cost Metric: Link Maximum Reservable Bandwidth . . . . . 17 8.1. Cost Metric: Link Maximum Reservable Bandwidth . . . . . 17
8.2. Cost Metric: Link Residue Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.2. Cost Metric: Link Residue Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Cost Metric: Link Available Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.4. Cost Metric: Link Utilized Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Open Issue List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Cost Metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic Cost Metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO). It is used in both the Cost Map Service and the Optimization (ALTO). It is used in both the Cost Map Service and the
Endpoint Cost Service. In particular, applications may benefit from Endpoint Cost Service. In particular, applications may benefit from
knowing network performance measured on several Cost Metrics. For knowing network performance measured on several Cost Metrics. For
example, a more delay-sensitive application may focus on latency, and example, a more delay-sensitive application may focus on latency, and
a more bandwidth-sensitive application may focus on available a more bandwidth-sensitive application may focus on available
bandwidth. bandwidth.
This document introduces a set of new cost metrics, listed in This document introduces a set of new cost metrics, listed in
Table 1, to support the aforementioned applications and allow them to Table 1, to support the aforementioned applications and allow them to
determine "where" to connect based on network performance criteria. determine "where" to connect based on network performance criteria.
Hence, this document extends the base ALTO protocol [ALTO], which Hence, this document extends the base ALTO protocol [ALTO], which
defines only a single cost metric, i.e., the generic "routingcost" defines only a single cost metric, i.e., the generic "routingcost"
metric (Sec. 14.2 of ALTO base specification [ALTO]). metric (Sec. 14.2 of ALTO base specification [ALTO]).
+----------+--------------+---------------------------------------------+ +----------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
|Namespace | Property | Reference | |Namespace | Property | Reference |
+----------+--------------+---------------------------------------------+ +----------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| | owdelay | See Section 3,[RFC2679] Section 3.6 | | | owdelay | See Section 3,[RFC2679] Section 3.6 |
| | rtt | See Section 4,[RFC2681] Section 2.6 | | | rtt | See Section 4,[RFC2681] Section 2.6 |
| | pdv | See Section 5,[RFC3393] Section 2.6 | | | pdv | See Section 5,[RFC3393] Section 2.6 |
| | hopcount | See Section 6,[RFC7285] | | | hopcount | See Section 6,[RFC7285] |
| | pktloss | See Section 7,[RFC7680] Section 2.6 | | | pktloss | See Section 7,[RFC7680] Section 2.6 |
| | maxresbw | See Section 8.1,[RFC5305] Section 3.5 | | | maxresbw | See Section 8.1,[RFC5305] Section 3.5 |
| | residbw | See Section 8.2,[RFC7810] Section 4.5 | | | residbw | See Section 8.2,[RFC7810] Section 4.5 |
| | availbw | See Section 8.3,[RFC7810] Section 4.6 | +----------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| | utilbw | See Section 8.4,[RFC7810] Section 4.7 | Table 1.
+----------+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 1.
The purpose of this draft is to list the metrics likely to be exposed The purpose of this draft is to list the metrics likely to be exposed
to ALTO Clients, including those already specified in other to ALTO Clients, including those already specified in other
standardization groups and as such it does not claim novelty on all standardization groups and as such it does not claim novelty on all
the specified metrics. Some metrics may have values produced by the specified metrics. Some metrics may have values produced by
standard measurement methods such as those specified in IPPM, some standard measurement methods such as those specified in IPPM, some
may be ISP dependent such as those registered in ISIS or OSPF-TE. In may be ISP dependent such as those registered in ISIS or OSPF-TE. In
this case, this document will refer to the relevant specifications. this case, this document will refer to the relevant specifications.
An ALTO server may provide a subset of the cost metrics described in An ALTO server may provide a subset of the cost metrics described in
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
metrics metrics
2.1. Data sources Challenge 2.1. Data sources Challenge
An ALTO server needs data sources to compute the cost metrics An ALTO server needs data sources to compute the cost metrics
described in this document. This document does not define the exact described in this document. This document does not define the exact
data sources. For example, the ALTO server may use log servers or data sources. For example, the ALTO server may use log servers or
the OAM system as its data source [ALTO-DEPLOYMENT]. In particular, the OAM system as its data source [ALTO-DEPLOYMENT]. In particular,
the cost metrics defined in this document can be computed using the cost metrics defined in this document can be computed using
routing systems as the data sources. Mechanisms defined in routing systems as the data sources. Mechanisms defined in
[RFC3630], [RFC3784], [OSPF-TE], [ISIS-TE], [BGP-LS] and [BGP-PM] [RFC2681],[RFC3393],[RFC7679],[RFC7680],[RFC3630], [RFC3784],
that allow an ALTO Server to retrieve and derive the necessary [RFC7471], [RFC7810], [RFC7752] and [BGP-PM] that allow an ALTO
information to compute the metrics that we describe in this document. Server to retrieve and derive the necessary information to compute
the metrics that we describe in this document.
One challenge lies in the data sources originating the ALTO metric One challenge lies in the data sources originating the ALTO metric
values. The very important purpose of ALTO is to guide application values. The very important purpose of ALTO is to guide application
traffic with provider network centric information that may be exposed traffic with provider network centric information that may be exposed
to ALTO Clients in the form of network performance metric values. to ALTO Clients in the form of network performance metric values.
Not all of these metrics have values produced by standardized Not all of these metrics have values produced by standardized
measurement methods or routing protocols. Some of them involve measurement methods or routing protocols. Some of them involve
provider-centric policy considerations. Some of them may describe provider-centric policy considerations. Some of them may describe
wireless or cellular networks. To reliably guide users and wireless or cellular networks. To reliably guide users and
applications while preserving provider privacy, ALTO performance applications while preserving provider privacy, ALTO performance
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint). query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
Method of Measurement or Calculation: Method of Measurement or Calculation:
See section 8.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 8.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Method. Measurement Method.
Units of Measurement: Units of Measurement:
See section 8.4.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 8.4.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Unit. The unit is expressed in seconds. Measurement Unit. The unit is expressed in milliseconds in this
document.
Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain:
See section 2.1, Data sources. See section 2.1, Data sources.
Measurement Timing: Measurement Timing:
See section 8.3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 8.3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Timing. Measurement Timing.
skipping to change at page 8, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 44
in the query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint). in the query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
Method of Measurement or Calculation: Method of Measurement or Calculation:
See section 4.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 4.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Method. Measurement Method.
Units of Measurement: Units of Measurement:
See section 4.4.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 4.4.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Unit. The unit is expressed in seconds. Measurement Unit. The unit is expressed in milliseconds in this
document.
Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain:
See section 2.1, Data sources. See section 2.1, Data sources.
Measurement Timing: Measurement Timing:
See section 4.3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 4.3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Timing. Measurement Timing.
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
PID, or endpoint to endpoint). PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
Method of Measurement or Calculation: Method of Measurement or Calculation:
See section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Method. Measurement Method.
Units of Measurement: Units of Measurement:
See section 5.4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 5.4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Unit. The unit is expressed in seconds. Measurement Unit. The unit is expressed in milliseconds in this
document.
Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain:
See section 2.1, Data sources. See section 2.1, Data sources.
Measurement Timing: Measurement Timing:
See section 5.3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for See section 5.3.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for
Measurement Timing. Measurement Timing.
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
Metric name: Metric name:
Hop count Hop count
Metric Description: Metric Description:
To specify the number of hops in the path between the source To specify the number of hops in the path between the source
endpoint and the destination endpoint. The hop count is a basic endpoint and the destination endpoint. The hop count is a basic
measurement of distance in a network and can be exposed as Router measurement of distance in a network and can be exposed as Router
Hops, IP hops or other hops in direct relation to the routing Hops, IP hops in direct relation to the routing protocols
protocols originating this information. It might also result from originating this information. It might also result from the
the aggregation of such information. aggregation of such information.
Method of Measurement or Calculation: Method of Measurement or Calculation:
See section 2.2, Computation of metrics. The hop count can and calculated based on the number of routers
from the source endpoint through which data must pass to reach the
destination endpoint.
Units of Measurement: Units of Measurement:
The unit is integer number. The unit is integer number.
Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain:
See section 2.1, Data sources. The hop count can be measured at the source endpoint by
traceroute.
Measurement Timing: Measurement Timing:
See section 2.1, second paragraph for Measurement Timing. Upon need, the traceroute can use UDP probe message or other
implementations that use ICMP and TCP to discover the hop counts
along the path from source endpoint to destination endpoint.
Use and Applications: Use and Applications:
See section 3 for use and application. See section 3 for use and application.
Example 4: hopcount value on source-destination endpoint pairs Example 4: hopcount value on source-destination endpoint pairs
POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1 POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com Host: alto.example.com
Content-Length: TBA Content-Length: TBA
skipping to change at page 16, line 39 skipping to change at page 16, line 39
{ {
"meta": { "meta": {
"cost type": { "cost type": {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-mode": "numerical",
"cost-metric":"pktloss"} "cost-metric":"pktloss"}
} }
}, },
"endpoint-cost-map": { "endpoint-cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": { "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89" : 0, "ipv4:192.0.2.89" : 0,
"ipv4:198.51.100.34": 1, "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 0,
"ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : 2, "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : 0,
} }
} }
} }
8. Traffic Engineering Performance Cost Metrics 8. Traffic Engineering Performance Cost Metrics
This section introduces ALTO network performance metrics that may be This section introduces ALTO network performance metrics that may be
aggregated from network metrics measured on links and specified in aggregated from network metrics measured on links and specified in
other documents. In particular, the bandwidth related metrics other documents. In particular, the bandwidth related metrics
specified in this section are only available through link level specified in this section are only available through link level
skipping to change at page 20, line 45 skipping to change at page 20, line 45
}, },
"endpoint-cost-map" { "endpoint-cost-map" {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2" { "ipv4:192.0.2.2" {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89" : 0, "ipv4:192.0.2.89" : 0,
"ipv4:198.51.100.34": 2000, "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 2000,
"ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd": 5000, "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd": 5000,
} }
} }
} }
8.3. Cost Metric: Link Available Bandwidth
Metric name:
Available Bandwidth
Metric Description:
To specify spatial and temporal availaible bandwidth over the
specified source and destination. The value is calculated by
subtracting the measured bandwidth used for the actual forwarding
of best effort traffic from Residue Bandwidth (motivated from
[RFC7810], Sec.4.6.). The spatial aggregation level is specified
in the query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
Method of Measurement or Calculation:
Available bandwidth is the Unidirectional Available bandwidth
measured between two directly connected IS-IS neighbors or OSPF
neighbors, See section 4.6 of [RFC7810] for Measurement Method.
Units of Measurement:
The unit of measurement is byte per seconds.
Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain:
See section 2.1, Data sources.
Measurement Timing:
See section 5 of [RFC7810] for Measurement Timing.
Use and Applications:
See section 3 for use and application. Besides, knowledge about
available bandwidth is essential for applications to distribute or
schedule their transmissions. The example below illustrates how
this metric is provided in the form of an ALTO calendar, as
specified in [XXXX] to help deciding "where" and "when" to
transmit.
Example 8: availbw value on source-destination endpoint pairs
This example assumes that the ALTO Server provides the values for
metric "availbw" in the form of an ALTO calendar and declares it
in its IRD.
POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Content-Length: TBA
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
Accept: application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json
{
"cost-type": { "cost-mode": "numerical",
"cost-metric": "availbw"},
"calendared" : [true],
"endpoints": {
"srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ],
"dsts": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.89",
"ipv4:198.51.100.34",
"ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: TBA
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta": {
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "availbw"
}
"calendar-response-attributes" : [
"calendar-start-time" : Tue, 1 Mar 2017 13:00:00 GMT,
"time-interval-size" : "1 hour",
"numb-intervals" : 8
]
},
"endpoint-cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2" {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89" : [6,5,7,8,4,10,7,6],
"ipv4:198.51.100.34" : [7,4,6,8,5,9,6,7],
"ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : [7,6,8,5,7,9,6,8],
}
}
}
8.4. Cost Metric: Link Utilized Bandwidth
Metric name:
Utilized Bandwidth
Metric Description:
To specify spatial and temporal utilized bandwidth over the
specified source and destination. The value is corresponding to
the actual measured bandwidth used for all traffic (motivated from
[RFC7810], Sec.4.7.). The spatial aggregation level is specified
in the query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).
Method of Measurement or Calculation:
Link Utilizated bandwidth is Unidirectional utilization bandwidth
measured between two directly connected IS-IS neighbors or OSPF
neighbors, See section 4.7 of [RFC7810] for Measurement Method.
Units of Measurement:
The unit of measurement is byte per seconds.
Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain:
See section 2.1, Data sources.
Measurement Timing:
Link Utilized bandwidth is Unidirectional utilization bandwidth
measured between two directly connected IS-IS neighbors or OSPF
neighbors, See section 5 of [RFC7810] for Measurement Timing.
Use and Applications:
See section 3 for use and application.
Example 9: utilbw value on source-destination endpoint pairs
POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Content-Length: TBA
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
Accept: application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json
{
"cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "utilbw"},
"endpoints": {
"srcs" : [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ],
"dsts" : [
"ipv4:192.0.2.89",
"ipv4:198.51.100.34",
"ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: TBA
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta": {
"cost type": {
"cost-mode": "numerical",
"cost-metric": "utilbw"
}
},
"endpoint-cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2" {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89" : 0,
"ipv4:198.51.100.34" : 2000,
"ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : 5000,
}
}
}
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The properties defined in this document present no security The properties defined in this document present no security
considerations beyond those in Section 15 of the base ALTO considerations beyond those in Section 15 of the base ALTO
specification [ALTO]. specification [ALTO].
However concerns addressed in Sections "15.1 Authenticity and However concerns addressed in Sections "15.1 Authenticity and
Integrity of ALTO Information", "15.2 Potential Undesirable Guidance Integrity of ALTO Information", "15.2 Potential Undesirable Guidance
from Authenticated ALTO Information" and "15.3 Confidentiality of from Authenticated ALTO Information" and "15.3 Confidentiality of
ALTO Information" remain of utmost importance. Indeed, TE ALTO Information" remain of utmost importance. Indeed, TE
skipping to change at page 26, line 5 skipping to change at page 21, line 23
formal conditions of mutual trust. formal conditions of mutual trust.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
IANA has created and now maintains the "ALTO Cost Metric Registry", IANA has created and now maintains the "ALTO Cost Metric Registry",
listed in Section 14.2, Table 3 of [RFC7285]. This registry is listed in Section 14.2, Table 3 of [RFC7285]. This registry is
located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto- located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-
protocol.xhtml#cost-metrics>. This document requests to add the protocol.xhtml#cost-metrics>. This document requests to add the
following entries to "ALTO Cost Meric Registry". following entries to "ALTO Cost Meric Registry".
+----------+--------------+----------------------------------------------+ +----------+------------+----------------------------------------------+
|Namespace | Property | Reference | |Namespace | Property | Reference |
+----------+--------------+----------------------------------------------+ +----------+------------+----------------------------------------------+
| | owdelay | [thisdraft] Section 3,[RFC2679] Section 3.6 | | | owdelay | [thisdraft] Section 3,[RFC2679] Section 3.6 |
| | rtt | [thisdraft] Section 4,[RFC2681],Section 2.6 | | | rtt | [thisdraft] Section 4,[RFC2681],Section 2.6 |
| | pdv | [thisdraft] Section 5,[RFC3393],Section 2.6 | | | pdv | [thisdraft] Section 5,[RFC3393],Section 2.6 |
| | hopcount | [thisdraft] Section 6,[RFC7285] | | | hopcount | [thisdraft] Section 6,[RFC7285] |
| | pktloss | [thisdraft] Section 7,[RFC7680],Section 2.6 | | | pktloss | [thisdraft] Section 7,[RFC7680],Section 2.6 |
| | maxresbw | [thisdraft] Section 8.1,[RFC5305],Section 3.5| | | maxresbw | [thisdraft] Section 8.1,[RFC5305],Section 3.5|
| | residbw | [thisdraft] Section 8.2,[RFC7810],Section 4.5| | | residbw | [thisdraft] Section 8.2,[RFC7810],Section 4.5|
| | availbw | [thisdraft] Section 8.3,[RFC7810],Section 4.6| +----------+------------+----------------------------------------------+
| | utilbw | [thisdraft] Section 8.4,[RFC7810,Section4.7] |
+----------+--------------+----------------------------------------------+
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp]
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Gredler, H., Ray, S., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and C.
Tantsura, J., and C. Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering
IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions", Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-08 (work in progress), August bgp-10 (work in progress), March 2018.
2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]
Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,
"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- "Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf-
ippm-initial-registry-05 (work in progress), October 2017. ippm-initial-registry-06 (work in progress), March 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997. Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
skipping to change at page 27, line 30 skipping to change at page 22, line 43
Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
"Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014, RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, [RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January (IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
skipping to change at page 28, line 8 skipping to change at page 23, line 26
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-alto-deployments] [I-D.ietf-alto-deployments]
Stiemerling, M., Kiesel, S., Scharf, M., Seidel, H., and Stiemerling, M., Kiesel, S., Scharf, M., Seidel, H., and
S. Previdi, "ALTO Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf- S. Previdi, "ALTO Deployment Considerations", draft-ietf-
alto-deployments-16 (work in progress), July 2016. alto-deployments-16 (work in progress), July 2016.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Framework for Performance Metric
Development", RFC 6390, July 2011. Development", RFC 6390, July 2011.
Appendix A. Open Issue List
We need to consider to add Cellular endpoint format support in the
example, the Cellular endpoint format is specified in draft-
randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
236 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/