Multi-Cost ALTO
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (alto WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sabine Randriamasy , Wendy Roome , Nico Schwan | ||
| Last updated | 2016-06-13 | ||
| Replaces | draft-randriamasy-alto-multi-cost | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
ARTART Telechat review
(of
-08)
Ready with Issues
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-07)
Has Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-02
Network Working Group S. Randriamasy
Internet-Draft W. Roome
Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Bell Labs
Expires: December 15, 2016 N. Schwan
Thales Deutschland
June 13, 2016
Multi-Cost ALTO
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-02
Abstract
The ALTO (Application Layer-Traffic Optimization) Protocol
([RFC7285]) defines several services that return various metrics
describing the costs between network endpoints. For example, when
downloading a file that is mirrored on several sites, a user
application may use these ALTO cost metrics to determine the most
efficient mirror site.
An ALTO Server may offer a variety of cost metrics, based on latency,
bandwidth, hop count, jitter, or whatever else the ALTO Server deems
useful. When selecting a mirror site, a client may consider more
than one metric, perhaps trading bandwidth for latency. While the
base ALTO Protocol allows a client to use more than one cost metric,
to do so, the client must request each metric separately. This
document defines a new service that allows a client to retrieve
several cost metrics with one request, which is considerably more
efficient. In addition, this document extends the ALTO constraint
tests to allow a user to specify an arbitrary logical combination of
tests on several cost metrics.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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/.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
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 December 15, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview Of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.1. Extended constraint predicates . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.2. Extended logical combination of predicates . . . . . 8
3.6.3. Testable Cost Types in constraints . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6.4. Testable Cost Type Names in IRD capabilities . . . . 9
3.6.5. Legacy client issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions . . . . 11
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
5.1. Information Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1 . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2 . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3 . . . . . . . . 21
5.5. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #4 . . . . . . . . 23
5.6. Endpoint Cost Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. Privacy And Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
IETF has designed a new service called ALTO that provides guidance to
overlay applications, which have to select one or several hosts from
a set of candidates that are able to provide a desired resource.
This guidance is based on parameters such as the topological
distance, that affect performance and efficiency of the data
transmission between the hosts. The purpose of ALTO is to improve
Quality of Experience (QoE) in the application while reducing
resource consumption in the underlying network infrastructure. The
ALTO protocol conveys the Internet View from the perspective of a
Provider Network region that spans from a region to one or more
Autonomous System (AS) and is called a Network Map. ALTO may also
provide the Provider determined Cost Map between locations of the
Network Map or Endpoint Cost Map between groups of individual
endpoints. Last, these costs are provided as numerical or ordinal
values.
Current ALTO Costs and their modes provide values that are seen to be
stable over a longer period of time, such as hopcount and
administrative routing cost to reflect ISP routing preferences.
Recently, new use cases have extended the usage scope of ALTO to
Content Delivery Networks (CDN), Data Centers and applications that
need additional information to select their Endpoints or handle their
PIDs.
Thus a multitude of new Cost Types that better reflect the
requirements of these applications are expected to be specified, in
particular cost values that change more frequently than previously
assumed.
The ALTO protocol [RFC7285] restricts ALTO Cost Maps and Endpoint
Cost services to only one Cost Type and Cost Mode per ALTO request.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
To retrieve information for several Cost Types, an ALTO client must
send several separate requests to the server.
It would be far more efficient, in terms of Round Trip Time (RTT),
traffic, and processing load on the ALTO client and server, to get
all costs with a single query/response transaction. Vector costs
provide a robust and natural input to multi-variate path computation
as well as robust multi-variate selection of multiple Endpoints. In
particular, one Cost Map reporting on N Cost Types is less bulky than
N Cost Maps containing one Cost Type each. This is valuable for both
the storage of these maps and for their transmission. Additionally,
for many emerging applications that need information on several Cost
Types, having them gathered in one map will save time. Another
potential advantage is consistency: providing values for several Cost
Types in one single batch is useful for Clients needing synchronized
ALTO information updates.
Along with multi-cost values queries, the filtering capabilities need
to be extended to allow constraints on multiple metrics. The base
protocol allows a client to provide optional constraint tests for a
Filtered Cost Map or the Endpoint Cost Service. In the base
protocol, the constraint tests are limited to the AND-combination of
simple comparison tests on the value of the (single) requested Cost
Type. It is therefore necessary to allow constraints on multiple
metrics. Beyond that, applications that are sensitive to several
metrics and struggle with complicated network conditions may need to
arbitrate between conflicting objectives such as routing cost and
network performance. To address this issue, this document proposes
to extend the base protocol by extending constraints to test multiple
metrics, and by allowing these constraints to be combined with
logical 'ORs' as well as logical 'ANDs'. This allows an application
to make requests such as: "select solutions with either (moderate
"hopcount" AND high "routingcost") OR (higher "hopcount" AND moderate
"routingcost")". To ensure compatibility with legacy ALTO Clients,
only the Filtered Cost Map and Endpoint Cost Map services are
extended to return Multi-Cost values. Full Cost Map services remain
unchanged, and are restricted to returning single cost values.
This document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines terminology
used in this document. Section 3 gives a non-normative overview of
the multi-cost extensions, and Section 4 gives their formal
definitions. Section 5 gives several complete examples. The
remaining sections describe the IANA and privacy considerations.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
2. Terminology
o {1.2.3}: References with curly brackets are to sections in the
ALTO protocol specification [RFC7285].
o Endpoint (EP): A Peer, a CDN storage location, a physical server
involved in a virtual server-supported application, a party in a
resource sharing swarm such as a computation grid or an online
multi-party game.
o Endpoint Discovery (EP Discovery): This term covers the different
types of processes used to discover the eligible endpoints.
o Network Service Provider (NSP): Includes both ISPs, who provide
means to transport the data, and CDNs who care for the
dissemination, persistent storage and possibly identification of
the best/closest content copy.
o ALTO transaction: A request/response exchange between an ALTO
Client and an ALTO Server.
o Application Client (AC): This term generalizes the case of a P2P
client to include the case of a CDN client, a client of an
application running on a virtual server, a Grid application
client, or any Client that can choose between several connection
points for data or resource exchange.
3. Overview Of Approach
The following is a non-normative overview of the multi-cost
extensions defined in this document. It assumes the reader is
familiar with Cost Map resources in the ALTO Protocol ([RFC7285]).
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format
Formally, the cost entries in an ALTO Cost Map can be any type of
JSON value (see the DstCosts object in {11.2.3.6}). However, that
section also says that an implementation may assume costs are JSON
numbers, unless the implementation is using an extension which
signals a different data type.
Therefore this document extends the definition of a Cost Map to allow
a cost to be an array of costs, one per metric, instead of just one
number. For example, here is a Cost Map with the "routingcost" and
"hopcount" metrics. Note that this is identical to a regular ALTO
Cost Map, except that the values are arrays instead of numbers.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [ ... ],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1":[1,0], "PID2":[5,23], "PID3":[10,5] },
...
}
}
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy Clients
The multi-cost extensions defined in this document must not break
legacy implementations (that is, clients and servers which are not
aware of these extensions). One way to achieve that would be to
define a new media type for an array-valued Multi Cost Map. However,
as indicated above, an array-valued Multi Cost Map is almost
identical to a single-valued Cost Map, so it should be simple to
write a parser which handles either type of cost map. Hence defining
a new media type could result in a lot of wasteful duplication.
Therefore this document does not define any new media types.
Instead, as described below, it extends the specifications in the
ALTO Server's Information Resource Directory (IRD) so that legacy
clients will not request array-valued Multi Cost Map resources. This
relies on the requirement that ALTO Clients MUST ignore unknown
fields ({8.3.7}).
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources
This document extends the Filtered Cost Map service to allow the same
resource to return either a single-valued Cost Map, as defined in
[RFC7285], or an array-valued Multi Cost Map, as defined in this
document. An extended Filtered Cost Map resource has a new
capability, "max-cost-types". The value is the maximum number of
cost types this resource can return for one request. The existence
of this capability means the resource understands the extensions in
this document.
For example, the following fragment from an IRD defines an extended
Filtered Cost Map resource:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ],
...
}
A legacy client will ignore the "max-cost-types" capability, and will
send a request with the input parameter "cost-type" describing the
desired cost metric, as defined in [RFC7285]. The ALTO Server will
return a single-valued legacy Cost Map.
However, a multi-cost-aware client will realize that this resource
supports the multi-cost extensions, and can send a POST request with
the new input parameter "multi-cost-types", whose value is an array
of cost types. Because the request has the "multi-cost-types"
parameter (rather than the "cost-type" parameter defined in the base
protocol), the server realizes that the client also supports the
extensions in this document, and hence responds with a Multi Cost
Map, with the costs in the order listed in "multi-cost-types".
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources
This document uses the technique described in Section 3.3 to extend
the Endpoint Cost Service to return array-valued costs to clients who
also are aware of these extensions.
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources
Full Cost Map resources are GET-mode requests, with no capabilities
other than the name of the cost type they return. Therefore unless
we create a new media type for array-valued Cost Maps, it is not
possible to define a Multi-Cost Full Cost Map resource so that multi-
cost-aware clients can recognize it and legacy clients will ignore
it. Indeed, the response for a Full Cost Map conveying multiple cost
types would include a "meta" field that would itself include a "cost-
type" field, that would list several values corresponding to the cost
types of the cost map. A legacy client would not be able to
understand this list. It would not know what the cost type of the
map is and neither would it be able to interpret the cost values
array provided by a Multi-Cost full maps.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
However {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285] requires a Filtered Cost Map to
return the entire Cost Map if the client omits the source and
destination PIDs. Hence a client can use an extended Filtered Cost
Map resource to get a full Multi Cost Map.
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests
[RFC7285] defines a simple constraint test capability for Filtered
Cost Maps and Endpoint Cost Services. If a resource supports
constraints, the server restricts the response to costs that satisfy
a list of simple predicates provided by the client. For example, if
the client gives the constraints
"constraints": ["ge 10", "le 20"]
Then the server only returns costs in the range [10,20].
To be useful with multi-cost requests, the constraint tests require
several extensions.
3.6.1. Extended constraint predicates
First, because a multi-cost request involves more than one cost
metric, the simple predicates must be extended to specify the metric
to test. Therefore we extend the predicate syntax to "[##] op
value", where "##" is the index of a cost metric in this multi-cost
request.
3.6.2. Extended logical combination of predicates
Second, once multiple cost metrics are involved, the "AND" of simple
predicates is no longer sufficient. To be useful, clients must be
able to express "OR" tests. Hence we add a new field, "or-
constraints", to the client request. The value is an array of arrays
of simple predicates, and represents the OR of ANDs of those
predicates.
Thus, the following request tells the server to limit its response to
cost points with "routingcost" <= 100 AND "hopcount" <= 2, OR else
"routingcost" <= 10 AND "hopcount" <= 6:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "routingcost", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
{"cost-metric": "hopcount", "cost-mode": "numerical"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 100", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids": {...}
}
3.6.3. Testable Cost Types in constraints
Finally, a client may want to test a cost type whose actual value is
irrelevant, as long as it satisfies the tests. For example, a client
may want the value of the cost metric "routingcost" for all PID pairs
that satisfy constraints on the metric "hopcount", without needing
the actual value of "hopcount".
For example, the following request tells the server to return just
"routingcost" for those source and destination pairs for which
"hopcount" is <= 6:
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "routingcost", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
],
"testable-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "hopcount", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
],
"constraints": ["[0] le 6"],
"pids": {...}
}
In this example, "[0]" means the constraint applies to "hopcount"
because that is the first cost type in the "testable-cost-types"
parameter. (If "testable-cost-types" is omitted, it is assumed to be
the same as "multi-cost-types".)
3.6.4. Testable Cost Type Names in IRD capabilities
In [RFC7285], when a resource's capability "constraints" is true, the
server accepts constraints on all the cost types listed in the "cost-
type-names" capability. However, some ALTO Servers may not be
willing to allow contraint tests on all available cost metrics.
Therefore the Multi-Cost ALTO protocol extension defines the
capability field "testable-cost-type-names". Like "cost-type-names",
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
it is an array of cost type names. If present, that resource only
allows constraint tests on the cost types in that list. "testable-
cost-type-names" MUST be a subset of "cost-type-names".
3.6.5. Legacy client issues
While a multi-cost-aware client will recognize the "testable-cost-
type-names" field, and will honor those restrictions, a legacy client
will not. Hence a legacy may send a request with a constraint test
on any of the cost types listed in "cost-type-names".
To avoid that problem, the "testable-cost-type-names" and "cost-
constraints" fields are mutually exclusive: a resource may define one
or the other capability, but MUST NOT define both. Thus a resource
that does not allow constraint tests on all cost metrics will set
"testable-cost-type-names" to the testable metrics, and will set
"cost-constraints" to "false". A multi-cost-aware client will
recognize the "testable-cost-type-names" field, and will realize that
its existence means the resource does allow (limited) contraint
tests, while a legacy client will think that resource does not allow
constraint tests at all. To allow legacy clients to use constraint
tests, the ALTO Server MAY define an additional resource with "cost-
constraints" set to "true" and "cost-type-names" set to the metrics
which can be tested.
In the IRD example below, the resource "filtered-cost-map-extended"
provides values for three metrics: "num-routingcost", "num-hopcount"
and "num-bwscore". The capability "testable-cost-type-names"
indicates that the server only allows constraints on "routingcost"
and "hopcount". A multi-cost capable client will see this
capability, and will limit its constraint tests to those metrics.
Because capability "cost-constraints" is false (by default), a legacy
client will not use constraint tests on this resource at all.
The second resource, "filtered-multicost-map", is similar to the
first, except that all the metrics it returns are testable.
Therefore it sets "cost-constraints" to "true", and does not set the
"testable-cost-type-names" field. A legacy client that needs a
constraint test will use this resource rather than the first. A
multi-cost-aware client that does not need to retrieve the "num-
bwscore" metric may use either resource.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
"filtered-cost-map-extended" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/extn/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 3,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount",
"num-bwscore"],
"testable-cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
},
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount"],
}
}
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions
This section formally specifies the extensions to [RFC7285] to
support Multi-Cost ALTO transactions.
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions
This document extends Filtered Cost Maps, as defined in {11.3.2} of
[RFC7285], by adding new input parameters and capabilities, and by
returning JSONArrays instead of JSONNumbers as the cost values.
The media type (11.3.2.1}, HTTP method (11.3.2.2} and "uses"
specifications (11.3.2.5} are unchanged.
4.1.1. Capabilities
The filtered cost map capabilities are extended with two new members:
o max-cost-types,
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
o testable-cost-type-names
The capability "max-cost-types" indicates whether this resource
supports the Multi-Cost ALTO extensions, and the capability
"testable-cost-type-names" allows the resource to restrict constraint
tests to a subset of the available cost types. The
FilteredCostMapCapabilities object in {11.3.2.4} is extended as
follows:
object {
JSONString cost-type-names<1..*>;
[JSONBool cost-constraints;]
[JSONNumber max-cost-types;]
[JSONString testable-cost-type-names<1..*>;]
} FilteredCostMapCapabilities;
cost-type-names and cost-constraints: As defined in {11.3.2.4} of
[RFC7285].
max-cost-types: If present with value N greater than 0, this
resource understands the multi-cost extensions in this document,
and can return a Multi Cost Map with any combination of N or fewer
cost types in the "cost-type-names" list. If omitted, the default
value is 0.
testable-cost-type-names: If present, the resource allows constraint
tests, but only on the cost type names in this array. Each name
in "testable-cost-type-names" MUST also be in "cost-type-names".
If "testable-cost-type-names" is present, the "cost-constraints"
capability MUST NOT be "true", and if "cost-constraints" is
"true", "testable-cost-type-names" MUST NOT be present. Thus if
"cost-constraints" is "true", the resource MUST accept constraint
tests on any cost type in "cost-type-names".
As discussed in Section 3.6.4, this capability is useful when a
server is unable or unwilling to implement constraint tests on all
cost types. As discussed in Section 3.6.5, "testable-cost-type-
names" and "cost-constraints" are mutually exclusive to prevent
legacy clients from issuing constraint tests on untestable cost
types.
4.1.2. Accept Input Parameters
The ReqFilteredCostMap object in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285] is extended
as follows:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
object {
[CostType cost-type;]
[CostType multi-cost-types<1..*>;]
[CostType testable-cost-types<1..*>;]
[JSONString constraints<0..*>;]
[JSONString or-constraints<0..*><0..*>;]
PIDFilter pids;
} ReqFilteredCostMap;
object {
PIDName srcs<0..*>;
PIDName dsts<0..*>;
} PIDFilter;
cost-type: As defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285], with the
additional requirement that the client MUST specify either "cost-
type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both.
multi-cost-types: If present, the ALTO Server MUST return array-
valued costs for the cost types in this list. For each entry, the
"cost-metric" and "cost-mode" fields MUST match one of the
supported cost types indicated in member "cost-type-names" of this
resource's "capabilities" field (Section 4.1.1). The client MUST
NOT use this field unless this resource's "max-cost-types"
capability exists and has a value greater than 0. This field MUST
NOT have more than "max-cost-types" cost types. The client MUST
specify either "cost-type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT
specify both.
Note that if "multi-cost-types" has one cost type, the values in
the cost map will be arrays with one value.
testable-cost-types: A list of cost types used for extended
constraint tests, as described for the "constraints" and "or-
constraints" parameters. These cost types must either be a subset
of the cost types in the resource's "testable-cost-type-names"
capability (Section 4.1.1), or else, if the resource's capability
"cost-constraints" is true, a subset of the cost types in the
resource's "cost-type-names" capability
If "testable-cost-types" is omitted, it is assumed to have the
cost types in "multi-cost-types" or "cost-type".
This feature is useful when a client wants to test a cost type
whose actual value is irrelevant, as long as it satisfies the
tests. For example, a client may want the cost metric
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
"routingcost" for those PID pairs whose "hopcount" is less than
10. The exact hopcount does not matter.
constraints: If this resource's "max-cost-types" capability
(Section 4.1.1) has the value 0 (or is not defined), this
parameter is as defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285]: an array of
constraint tests related to each other by a logical AND. In this
case it MUST NOT be specified unless the resource's "cost-
constraints" capability is "true".
If this resource's "max-cost-types" capability has a value greater
than 0, then a "constraints" parameter with the array of extended
predicates [P1, P2, ...] is equivalent to an "or-constraints"
parameter with the value [[P1, P2, ...]]. In this case, the
"constraints" parameter MUST NOT be specified if the "or-
constraints" parameter is specified.
or-constraints: A JSONArray of JSONArrays of JSONStrings, where each
string is an extended constraint predicate as defined below. The
"or-constraint" tests are interpreted as the logical OR of ANDs of
predicates. That is, the ALTO Server should return a cost point
only if it satisfies all constraints in any one of the sub-arrays.
This parameter MAY be specified if this resource's "max-cost-
types" capability is defined with a value greater than 0
(Section 4.1.1), and if the resource allows constraint tests (the
resource's "cost-constraints" capability is "true" or its
"testable-cost-type-names" capability is not empty). Otherwise
this parameter MUST NOT be specified.
This parameter MUST NOT be specified if the "constraints"
parameter is specified.
An extended constraint predicate consists of two or three entities
separated by white space: (1) an optional cost type index, of the
form "[#]", with default value "[0]", (2) a required operator, and
(3) a required target value. The operator and target value are as
defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285]. The cost type index, i,
specifies the cost type to test. If the "testable-cost-type"
parameter is present, the test applies to the i'th cost type in
"testable-cost-types", starting with index 0. Otherwise if the
"multi-cost-types" parameter is present, the test applies to the
i'th cost type in that array. If neither parameters are present,
the test applies to the cost type in the "cost-type" parameter, in
which this case the index MUST be 0. Regardless of how the tested
cost type is selected, it MUST be in the resource's "testable-
cost-type-names" capability, or, if not present, in the "cost-
type-names" capability.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
As an example, suppose "multi-cost-types" has the single element
"routingcost", "testable-cost-types" has the single element
"hopcount", and "or-constraints" has the single element "[0] le
5". This is equivalent to the database query "SELECT and provide
routingcost WHERE hopcount <= 5".
Note that the index is optional, so a constraint test as defined
in {11.3.2.3}, such as "le 10", is equivalent to "[0] le 10".
Thus legacy constraint tests are also legal extended constraint
tests.
Also note that if the "max-cost-types" capability has a value
greater than 0, a client MAY use the "or-constraints" parameter
together with the "cost-type" parameter. That is, if the client
and server are both aware of the extensions in this document, a
client MAY use an "OR" test for a single-valued cost request.
pids, srcs, dsts: As defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285].
4.1.3. Response
If the client specifies the "cost-type" input parameter, the response
is exactly as defined in {11.2.3.6} of [RFC7285]. If the client
provides the "multi-cost-types" instead, then the response is changed
as follows:
o In "meta", the field "cost-type" is replaced with the field
"multi-cost-types", with the same value as the "multi-cost-types"
input parameter.
o The costs are JSONArrays, instead of JSONNumbers. All arrays have
the same cardinality as the "multi-cost-types" input parameter,
and contain the cost type values in that order. If a cost type is
not available for a particular source and destination, the ALTO
Server MUST use the JSON "null" value for that array element. If
none of the cost types are available for a particular source and
destination, the ALTO Server MAY omit the entry for that source
and destination.
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions
This document extends the Endpoint Cost Service, as defined in
{11.5.1} of [RFC7285], by adding new input parameters and
capabilities, and by returning JSONArrays instead of JSONNumbers as
the cost values.
The media type (11.5.1.1}, HTTP method (11.5.1.2} and "uses"
specifications (11.5.1.5} are unchanged.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
4.2.1. Capabilities
The extensions to the Endpoint Cost Service capabilities are
identical to the extensions to the Filtered Cost Map (see
Section 4.1.1).
4.2.2. Accept Input Parameters
The ReqEndpointCostMap object in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285] is extended
as follows:
object {
[CostType cost-type;]
[CostType multi-cost-types<1..*>;]
[CostType testable-cost-types<1..*>;]
[JSONString constraints<0..*>;]
[JSONString or-constraints<0..*><0..*>;]
EndpointFilter endpoints;
} ReqFilteredCostMap;
object {
[TypedEndpointAddr srcs<0..*>;]
[TypedEndpointAddr dsts<0..*>;]
} EndpointFilter;
cost-type: As defined in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285], with the
additional requirement that the client MUST specify either "cost-
type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both.
multi-cost-types: If present, the ALTO Server MUST return array-
valued costs for the cost types in this list. For each entry, the
"cost-metric" and "cost-mode" fields MUST match one of the
supported cost types indicated in this resource's "capabilities"
field (Section 4.2.1). The client MUST NOT use this field unless
this resource's "max-cost-types" capability exists and has a value
greater than 0. This field MUST NOT have more than "max-cost-
types" cost types. The client MUST specify either "cost-type" or
"multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both.
Note that if "multi-cost-types" has one cost type, the values in
the cost map will be arrays with one value.
testable-cost-types, constraints, or-constraints: Defined
equivalently to the corresponding input parameters for an extended
Filtered Cost Map (Section 4.1.2).
endpoints, srcs, dsts: As defined in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285].
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
4.2.3. Response
The extensions to the Endpoint Cost Service response are similar to
the extensions to the Filtered Cost Map response (Section 4.1.3).
Specifically, if the client specifies the "cost-type" input
parameter, the response is exactly as defined in {11.5.1.6} of
[RFC7285]. If the client provides the "multi-cost-types" instead,
then the response is changed as follows:
o In "meta", the field "cost-type" is replaced with the field
"multi-cost-types", with the same value as the "multi-cost-types"
input parameter.
o The costs are JSONArrays, instead of JSONNumbers. All arrays have
the same cardinality as the "multi-cost-types" input parameter,
and contain the cost type values in that order. If a cost type is
not available for a particular source and destination, the ALTO
Server MUST use the JSON "null" value for that array element. If
none of the cost types are available for a particular source and
destination, the ALTO Server MAY omit the entry for that source
and destination.
5. Examples
5.1. Information Resource Directory
The following is an example of an ALTO Server's Information Resource
Directory. In addition to Network and Cost Map resources, it defines
two Filtered Cost Map and an Endpoint Cost Service, which all
understand the multi-cost extensions.
GET /directory HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-directory+json,application/alto-error+json
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: [TODO]
Content-Type: application/alto-directory+json
{
"meta" : {
"default-alto-network-map" : "my-default-network-map",
"cost-types" : {
"num-routing" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "routingcost"
},
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
"num-hopcount" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "hopcount"
},
"num-bwscore" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "bandwidthscore"
},
.....
Other ALTO cost types as described in RFC7285
.....
}
},
"resources" : {
"my-default-network-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap",
"media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json"
},
"numerical-routing-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num-routing",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ]
}
},
"numerical-hopcount-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num-hopcount",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-hopcount" ]
}
},
.........
Other resources as described in RFC7285
.........
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
},
"filtered-cost-map-extended" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/extn/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 3,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount",
"num-bwscore"],
"testable-cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
},
"endpoint-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/endpointcost/lookup",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-endpointcost+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
}
}
}
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1
This example illustrates a simple multi-cost ALTO transaction. The
ALTO Server provides two Cost Types, "routingcost" and "hopcount",
both in "numerical" mode. The ALTO Server does not know the value of
the "routingcost" between PID2 and PID3, and hence uses "null" for
those costs.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
POST /multi/costmap/filtered" HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1":[1,0], "PID2":[4,3], "PID3":[10,2] },
"PID2": { "PID1":[15,5], "PID2":[1,0], "PID3":[null,9] },
"PID3": { "PID1":[20,12], "PID2":[null,1], "PID3":[1,0] }
}
}
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2
This example uses constraints to restrict the returned source/
destination PID pairs to those with "routingcost" between 5 and 10,
or "hopcount" equal to 0.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
POST /multi/costmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints" : [ ["[0] ge 5", "[0] le 10"],
["[1] eq 0"] ]
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ "PID1", "PID2" ],
"dsts" : [ "PID1", "PID2", "PID3" ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": [1,0], "PID3": [10,5] },
"PID2": { "PID2": [1,0] }
}
}
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3
This example uses extended constraints to limit the response to cost
points with ("routingcost" <= 10 and "hopcount" <= 2), or else
("routingcost" <= 3 and "hopcount" <= 6). Unlike the previous
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
example, the client is only interested in the "routingcost" cost
type, and uses the "cost-type" parameter instead of "multi-cost-
types" to tell the server to return scalar costs instead of array
costs:
POST /multi/multicostmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"cost-type" : {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"
},
"testable-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"cost-type" : {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"
}
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": 1, "PID3": 10 },
"PID2": { "PID2": 1 },
"PID3": { "PID3": 1 }
}
}
5.5. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #4
This example uses extended constraints to limit the response to cost
points with ("routingcost" <= 10 and "hopcount" <= 2), or else
("routingcost" <= 3 and "hopcount" <= 6). In this example, the
client is interested in the "routingcost" and "bandwidthscore" cost
metrics, but not in the "hopcount" metric:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
POST /multi/extn/costmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "bandwidthscore"}
],
"testable-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "bandwidthscore"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": [1,16] "PID3": [10,19] },
"PID2": { "PID2": [1,8] },
"PID3": { "PID3": [1,19] }
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
5.6. Endpoint Cost Service
This example uses the Endpoint Cost Service to retrieve the
"routingcost" and "hopcount" for selected endpoints, limiting the
response to costs with either low hopcount and reasonable routingcost
(hopcount <= 2 and routingcost <= 10), or else low routingcost and
reasonable hopcount (routingcost <= 3 and hopcount <= 6).
POST /multi/endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-endpointcost+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-endpoincostparams+json
Content-Length: ###
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"endpoints" : {
"srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2", "ipv6:2001:db8::1:0 ],
"dsts": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.89",
"ipv4:198.51.100.34",
"ipv4:203.0.113.45",
"ipv6:2001:db8::10"
]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta" : {
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"endpoint-cost-map" : {
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89": [15, 5],
"ipv4:203.0.113.45": [4, 23]
}
"ipv6:2001:db8::1:0": {
"ipv4:198.51.100.34": [16, 5],
"ipv6:2001:db8::10": [10, 2]
}
}
}
6. IANA Considerations
This document does define any new media types or introduce any new
IANA considerations.
7. Privacy And Security Considerations
This document does introduce any privacy or security issues not
already present in the ALTO protocol.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Richard Alimi, Fred Baker, Dhruv
Dhodi, Vijay Gurbani, Gao Kai, Dave Mac Dysan, Young Lee, Richard
Yang, Qiao Xiang and Wang Xin for fruitful discussions and feedback
on this document and previous versions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5693] "Application Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem
Statement", October 2009.
[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.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO June 2016
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6708] "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
Requirements", February 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Sabine Randriamasy
Nokia Bell Labs
Route de Villejust
NOZAY 91460
FRANCE
Email: Sabine.Randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com
Wendy Roome
Nokia Bell Labs
600 Mountain Ave, Rm 3B-324
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA
Phone: +1-908-582-7974
Email: w.roome@nokia-bell-labs.com
Nico Schwan
Thales Deutschland
Lorenzstrasse 10
Stuttgart 70435
Germany
Email: nico.schwan@thalesgroup.com
Randriamasy, et al. Expires December 15, 2016 [Page 27]