Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol
draft-roome-alto-resource-attr-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Wendy Roome | ||
| Last updated | 2014-10-08 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-roome-alto-resource-attr-00
ALTO WG W. Roome
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track October 8, 2014
Expires: April 11, 2015
Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol
draft-roome-alto-resource-attr-00
Abstract
This document extends the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(ALTO) Protocol [RFC7285] by defining additional descriptive
attributes for the resources offered by an ALTO Server.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Attributes Versus Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Changes To ALTO Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IRD Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Resource Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Attribute Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Attribute Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Proposed Resource Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Authoritative Endpoint Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Alternatives And Discussion (Delete if draft is published) . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
1. Introduction
In the ALTO Protocol [RFC7285], the Information Resource Directory
(IRD) defines the resources, or services, offered by an ALTO server.
An IRD contains one entry for each resource. Each entry provides the
information a client needs to use that resource: the URI for the
resource, the type of data the server returns, the type of data the
client sends (if any), the identifiers of any resources on which this
resource depends, and optional capabilities for the resource.
However, resources have many additional attributes. For example, a
Network Map resource maps PID (Provider-defined Identifier) names to
network address prefixes. A small Network Map resource might define
20 PIDs and a total of 100 prefixes, while a large Network Map might
have 5,000 PIDs and 500,000 prefixes. A client might like to know
the size of the Network Map before retrieving it, but the IRD gives
no hint.
Also, an ALTO server provided by an Internet Service Provider (ISP)
might have detailed information for network addresses managed by that
ISP, but only coarse information (or no information at all) for other
network addresses. If an ALTO Client needs cost information for a
particular network address, and the client knows about several
different ALTO Servers, the client would prefer to use the ALTO
Server with the best data for that address. But the IRD entries give
no hint as to the best server; the client would have to try each
server and guess as to which was the most accurate.
This document defines a framework for declaring such attributes in
IRD entries, and defines an initial set of attributes.
1.1. Attributes Versus Capabilities
The ALTO Protocol already defines a "capabilities" section for IRD
entries, so one alternative is simply to define additional
capabilities. We prefer not to do that for several reasons:
o Capabilities are always defined; the ALTO protocol either requires
the IRD entry to specify a value, or else defines a default.
Attributes are optional, and do not have defaults.
o Capability names are defined by the ALTO protocol; adding a new
capability requires a new RFC. Attribute names are managed by
IANA, so new attributes can be added without extending the
protocol.
o A client can deduce attributes by using the resource.
Capabilities cannot be deduced.
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
o Attribute values are approximate, and/or may change frequently.
Capabilities are accurate, and should not change unless the
resource is redefined. For example, if a Cost Map attribute says
the map has 500 cost points, that means that was the size when the
client retrieved the IRD. If the client retrieves the map a few
minutes later, the size might be different. However, if a
capability says a Cost Maps returns a "routingcost" cost metric,
it is an error if the resource returns a "hopcount" instead.
2. Changes To ALTO Protocol
2.1. IRD Entries
Resources attributes are defined by a new field, named "attributes",
at the same level as the existing "uri" and "media-type" fields in
IRD entries. That is, in [RFC7285] Sec. 9.2.2, IRDResourceEntry is
revised as:
object {
JSONString uri;
JSONString media-type;
[JSONString accepts;]
[Capabilities capabilities;]
[ResourceID uses<0..*>;]
[Attributes attributes;] // Added
} IRDResourceEntry;
object {
...
} Attributes; // Added
Here is an example of an IRD with attributes:
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
...
"resources" : {
"my-default-network-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap",
"media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json",
"attributes" : {
"pid-count-current" : 50,
"prefix-count-current" : 150,
"authoritative-prefixes" : {
"ipv4": [ "1.2.0.0/16", "3.4.0.0/16" ]
},
"authoritative-exclusions" : {
"ipv4": [ "1.2.1.0/25" ]
}
}
},
"numerical-routing-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/routingcost",
"media-type" : "application/alto-costmap+json",
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ]
},
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"attributes" : {
"cost-count-current" : 500,
"cost-count-range" : [ 250, 750 ]
}
},
...
3. Resource Attributes
3.1. Attribute Names
An attribute name is encoded as a string. The string MUST be no more
than 32 characters, and it MUST NOT contain characters other than US-
ASCII alphanumeric characters (U+0030-U+0039, U+0041-U+005A, and
U+0061-U+007A), the hyphen ('-', U+002D), the colon (':', U+003A),
the low line ('_', U+005F), or the '.' separator (U+002E). The '.'
separator is reserved for future use and MUST NOT be used unless
specifically indicated by a companion or extension document.
Identifiers prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use
[RFC5226] without a need to register with IANA. All other
identifiers MUST be registered in the "ALTO Resource Attribute
Registry" (see Section 7). For an identifier with the "priv:"
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
prefix, an additional string (e.g., company identifier or random
string) MUST follow (i.e., "priv:" only is not a valid identifier) to
reduce potential collisions.
Section 3.3 defines an initial set of Resource Attributes.
3.2. Attribute Values
The type of an attribute value depends on the attribute. When
registering an attribute with IANA, the JSON value type MUST be
specfied.
3.3. Proposed Resource Attributes
We propose the following Resource Attributes:
pid-count-current:
Resource type: Network Map
Value type: JSON Number
Semantics: The number of PIDs in the current Network Map.
prefix-count-current:
Resource type: Network Map
Value type: JSON Number
Semantics: The total number of prefixes in the current Network
Map.
pid-count-range:
Resource type: Network Map
Value type: JSON Array with two JSON Numbers
Semantics: Low and high values for the number of PIDs in the
Network Map. This range SHOULD cover the expected size of the
map for the foreseeable future.
prefix-count-range:
Resource type: Network Map
Value type: JSON Array with two JSON Numbers
Semantics: Low and high values for the total number of prefixes
in the Network Map. This range SHOULD cover the expected size of
the map for the foreseeable future.
authoritative-prefixes:
Resource types: Network Map and Endpoint Cost Map
Value type: A JSON Object of type NetworkMapData (Section
11.2.1.6 of [RFC7285])
This resource is authoritative (see Section 3.4) for all
endpoints which are covered by a prefix in this set, and which
are not covered by a prefix in the "authoritative-exclusions"
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
set.
authoritative-exclusions:
Resource types: Network Map and Endpoint Cost Map
Value type: A JSON Object of type NetworkMapData (Section
11.2.1.6 of [RFC7285])
See the "authoritative-prefixes" resource, above.
cost-count-current:
Resource type: Cost Map
Value type: JSON Number
Semantics: The number of cost points in the current Cost Map.
Note that although a Cost Map is an NxN matrix, where N is the
number of PIDs, a Cost Map is not required to define a cost for
every {source,destination} pair.
cost-count-range
Resource type: Cost Map
Value type: JSON Array with two JSON Numbers
Semantics: Low and high values for the total number of cost
points in the Cost Map. This range SHOULD cover the expected
size of the map for the foreseeable future.
3.4. Authoritative Endpoint Sets
The set of endpoints defined by the "authoritative-prefixes" and
"authoritative-exclusions" attributes are the endpoints for which a
resource provides authoritative data. For an ALTO Server provided by
an ISP, this will usually be the endpoints of the ISP's customers.
While we do not rigorously define "authoritative", in general if a
resource is authoritative for a set of endpoints, then:
o No other ALTO Server has more accurate data for those endpoints.
o The ALTO Server SHOULD fully specify the costs for those
endpoints. That is, for every endpoint EA in the authoritative
set and every other endpoint EX, the associated cost map
service(s) SHOULD define the costs from EA to EX and from EX to
EA.
o PIDs covering endpoints in the authoritative set SHOULD be more
detailed (smaller, finer-grained, etc.) than PIDs for other
endpoints.
We define the authoritative set with two sets of prefixes, one
inclusive, the other exclusive, for the following reason. The most
likely case is that an authoritative set represents the addresses of
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
an ISP's customers. In this case, the inclusive set would be the
prefixes that have been allocated to the ISP by the appropriate
authority. If customers have migrated to other ISPs and taken their
addresses, those prefixes form the exclusionary set. While the
exclusionary set is not necessary, it provides an efficient way to
represent a large block of addresses with a few exceptions. This
two-level model seems to be a good balance between efficiency and
simplicity.
4. Use Cases
Here are brief descriptions of several ways in which clients can take
advantage of Resource Attributes:
o Advance knowledge of the size of a network or cost map allows an
ALTO client to allocate sufficient space to hold the map, or to
select the appropriate way to store it. For example, a Cost Map
is an NxN matrix, where N is the number of PIDs. But it may be
sparse. If the number of costs in the Cost Map is considerably
less than the square of the number of PIDs in the associated
Network Map, then the client knows in advance that the Cost Map is
likely to be sparse, and can use a sparse matrix object. On the
other hand, if the number of costs is close to the square of the
number of PIDs, the client knows that there is no advantage in
using sparse matrix techniques.
o A client such as a P2P tracker can use the authoritative sets to
select the appropriate ALTO Server. For example, suppose the
tracker has obtained the IRDs for a number of ISP-maintained ALTO
Servers. When a peer at address E asks the tracker for a set of
peers, the tracker would locate the Network Map (or Endpoint Cost
Service) whose authoritative set includes E. This will mostly be
the ALTO Server for the requesting peer's ISP. The tracker uses
that ALTO resource to evaluate costs between E and the other
peers, and returns the peers with the lowest costs.
o If an ALTO Server offers several different Network Maps, a client
can use the network map size and/or authoritative sets to select
the appropriate Network Map.
5. Alternatives And Discussion (Delete if draft is published)
Here a few points for which I welcome discussion:
o Can anyone suggest a better name than "attributes"? I considered
"properties", but that conflicts with Endpoint Properties.
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
Another possibility is "meta", but we have overloaded that name.
o I don't like the term "authoritive" to describe the endpoints on
which a Network Map is centered. However, I can't think of
anything better, and it does seem to accurately reflect the
intent. Can anyone suggest an alternative?
6. Security Considerations
Because attributes should not provide any information which cannot be
deduced from the data already provided by an ALTO Server, this
extension does not introduce any security considerations not already
present in the ALTO Protocol.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a registry for ALTO Resource Attributes. When
a new ALTO Resource Attribute is defined and accepted by the ALTO
working group, requests for IANA registration MUST include the
identifier, applicable resource type(s), JSON type and intended
semantics.
Section 3.3 defines the initial set of Resource Attributes.
8. References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, BCP 26,
May 2008.
[RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S.,
Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application-Layer
Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285,
September 2014.
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Resource Attributes for ALTO Protocol October 2014
Author's Address
Wendy Roome
Alcatel-Lucent/Bell Labs
600 Mountain Ave, Rm 3B-324
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA
Phone: +1-908-582-7974
Email: w.roome@alcatel-lucent.com
Roome Expires April 11, 2015 [Page 10]