ALTO Extension: Path Vector
draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-19
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9275.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Kai Gao , Young Lee , Sabine Randriamasy , Y. Richard Yang , Jingxuan Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2021-12-02 (Latest revision 2021-10-25) | ||
| Replaces | draft-yang-alto-path-vector | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-17)
by Suresh Krishnan
Ready w/nits
ARTART Last Call review
(of
-16)
by Paul Kyzivat
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Vijay K. Gurbani | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2021-06-18 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9275 (Experimental) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Martin Duke | ||
| Send notices to | vijay.gurbani@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-19
ALTO K. Gao
Internet-Draft Sichuan University
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Lee
Expires: 28 April 2022 Samsung
S. Randriamasy
Nokia Bell Labs
Y.R. Yang
Yale University
J. Zhang
Tongji University
25 October 2021
ALTO Extension: Path Vector
draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-19
Abstract
This document is an extension to the base Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) protocol. It extends the ALTO Cost Map service
and ALTO Property Map service so that the application can decide
which endpoint(s) to connect based on not only numerical/ordinal cost
values but also details of the paths. This is useful for
applications whose performance is impacted by specified components of
a network on the end-to-end paths, e.g., they may infer that several
paths share common links and prevent traffic bottlenecks by avoiding
such paths. This extension introduces a new abstraction called
Abstract Network Element (ANE) to represent these components and
encodes a network path as a vector of ANEs. Thus, it provides a more
complete but still abstract graph representation of the underlying
network(s) for informed traffic optimization among endpoints.
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 https://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 28 April 2022.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Exposing Network Bottlenecks . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Resource Exposure for CDN and Service Edge . . . . . 14
5. Path Vector Extension: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Abstract Network Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.1. ANE Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.2. Ephemeral ANE and Persistent ANE . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.3. Property Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Path Vector Cost Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Multipart Path Vector Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3.1. Identifying the Media Type of the Root Object . . . . 21
5.3.2. References to Part Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Specification: Basic Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1. ANE Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. ANE Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.1. Entity Domain Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.2. Domain-Specific Entity Identifier . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.3. Hierarchy and Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.4. Media Type of Defining Resource . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.3. ANE Property Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4. Initial ANE Property Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4.2. Persistent Entity ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.4.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5. Path Vector Cost Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5.1. Cost Metric: ane-path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5.2. Cost Mode: array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
6.6. Part Resource ID and Part Content ID . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Specification: Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.1. Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2. Multipart Filtered Cost Map for Path Vector . . . . . . . 26
7.2.1. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2.2. HTTP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.2.3. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2.4. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2.5. Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2.6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.3. Multipart Endpoint Cost Service for Path Vector . . . . . 32
7.3.1. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.3.2. HTTP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.3.3. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.3.4. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.3.5. Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.3.6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.1. Example: Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.2. Example: Information Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . 37
8.3. Example: Multipart Filtered Cost Map . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.4. Example: Multipart Endpoint Cost Service Resource . . . . 41
8.5. Example: Incremental Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8.6. Example: Multi-cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9. Compatibility with Other ALTO Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 50
9.1. Compatibility with Legacy ALTO Clients/Servers . . . . . 50
9.2. Compatibility with Multi-Cost Extension . . . . . . . . . 50
9.3. Compatibility with Incremental Update . . . . . . . . . . 50
9.4. Compatibility with Cost Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10. General Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10.1. Constraint Tests for General Cost Types . . . . . . . . 51
10.2. General Multi-Resource Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12.1. ALTO Entity Domain Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12.2. ALTO Entity Property Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 55
12.2.1. New ANE Property Type: Maximum Reservable
Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
12.2.2. New ANE Property Type: Persistent Entity ID . . . . 55
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendix A. Revision Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
A.1. Changes since -17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
A.2. Changes since -16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
A.3. Changes since -15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
A.4. Changes since -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
A.5. Changes since -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
A.6. Changes since -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
A.7. Changes since -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
A.8. Changes since -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A.9. Changes since -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A.10. Changes since -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A.11. Changes Since Version -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
1. Introduction
Network performance metrics are crucial to the Quality of Experience
(QoE) of today's applications. The ALTO protocol allows Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) to provide guidance, such as topological
distance between different end hosts, to overlay applications. Thus,
the overlay applications can potentially improve the QoE by better
orchestrating their traffic to utilize the resources in the
underlying network infrastructure.
Existing ALTO Cost Map and Endpoint Cost Service provide only cost
information on an end-to-end path defined by its <source,
destination> endpoints: The base protocol [RFC7285] allows the
services to expose the topological distances of end-to-end paths,
while various extensions have been proposed to extend the capability
of these services, e.g., to express other performance metrics
[I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics], to query multiple costs
simultaneously [RFC8189], and to obtain the time-varying values
[RFC8896].
While the existing extensions are sufficient for many overlay
applications, the QoE of some overlay applications depends not only
on the cost information of end-to-end paths, but also on particular
components of a network on the paths and their properties. For
example, job completion time, which is an important QoE metric for a
large-scale data analytics application, is impacted by shared
bottleneck links inside the carrier network as link capacity may
impact the rate of data input/output to the job. We refer to such
components of a network as Abstract Network Elements (ANE).
Predicting such information can be very complex without the help of
the ISP [BOXOPT]. With proper guidance from the ISP, an overlay
application may be able to schedule its traffic for better QoE. In
the meantime, it may be helpful as well for ISPs if applications
could avoid using bottlenecks or challenging the network with poorly
scheduled traffic.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Despite the benefits, ISPs are not likely to expose details on their
network paths: first for the sake of confidentiality, second because
it may increase volume and computation overhead, and last because it
is difficult for ISPs to figure out what information and what details
an application needs. Likewise, applications do not necessarily need
all the network path details and are likely not able to understand
them.
Therefore, it is beneficial for both parties if an ALTO server
provides ALTO clients with an "abstract network state" that provides
the necessary details to applications, while hiding the network
complexity and confidential information. An "abstract network state"
is a selected set of abstract representations of Abstract Network
Elements traversed by the paths between <source, destination> pairs
combined with properties of these Abstract Network Elements that are
relevant to the overlay applications' QoE. Both an application via
its ALTO client and the ISP via the ALTO server can achieve better
confidentiality and resource utilization by appropriately abstracting
relevant Abstract Network Elements. Server scalability can also be
improved by combining Abstract Network Elements and their properties
in a single response.
This document extends [RFC7285] to allow an ALTO server to convey
"abstract network state", for paths defined by their <source,
destination> pairs. To this end, it introduces a new cost type
called "Path Vector". A Path Vector is an array of identifiers that
identifies an Abstract Network Element, which can be associated with
various properties. The associations between ANEs and their
properties are encoded in an ALTO information resource called Unified
Property Map, which is specified in
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new].
For better confidentiality, this document aims to minimize
information exposure. In particular, this document enables and
recommends that first ANEs are constructed on demand, and second an
ANE is only associated with properties that are requested by an ALTO
client. A Path Vector response involves two ALTO Maps: the Cost Map
that contains the Path Vector results and the up-to-date Unified
Property Map that contains the properties requested for these ANEs.
To enforce consistency and improve server scalability, this document
uses the "multipart/related" message defined in [RFC2387] to return
the two maps in a single response.
The rest of the document is organized as follows. Section 3
introduces the extra terminologies that are used in this document.
Section 4 uses an illustrative example to introduce the additional
requirements of the ALTO framework, and discusses potential use
cases. Section 5 gives an overview of the protocol design.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Section 6 and Section 7 specify the extension to the ALTO IRD and the
information resources, with some concrete examples presented in
Section 8. Section 9 discusses the backward compatibility with the
base protocol and existing extensions. Security and IANA
considerations are discussed in Section 11 and Section 12
respectively.
2. Requirements Languages
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
When the words appear in lower case, they are to be interpreted with
their natural language meanings.
3. Terminology
NOTE: This document depends on the Unified Property Map extension
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new] and should be processed after the
Unified Property Map document.
This document extends the ALTO base protocol [RFC7285] and the
Unified Property Map extension [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. In
addition to the terms defined in these documents, this document also
uses the following additional terms:
* Abstract Network Element (ANE): An Abstract Network Element is an
abstract representation for a component in a network that handles
data packets and whose properties can potentially have an impact
on the end-to-end performance of traffic. An ANE can be a
physical device such as a router, a link or an interface, or an
aggregation of devices such as a subnetwork, or a data center.
The definition of Abstract Network Element is similar to Network
Element defined in [RFC2216] in the sense that they both provide
an abstract representation of particular components of a network.
However, they have different criteria on how these particular
components are selected. Specifically, Network Element requires
the components to be capable of exercising QoS control, while
Abstract Network Element only requires the components to have an
impact on the end-to-end performance.
* ANE Name: An ANE can be constructed either statically in advance
or on demand based on the requested information. Thus, different
ANEs may only be valid within a particular scope, either ephemeral
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
or persistent. Within each scope, an ANE is uniquely identified
by an ANE Name, as defined in Section 6.1. Note that an ALTO
client must not assume ANEs in different scopes but with the same
ANE Name refer to the same component(s) of the network.
* Path Vector: A Path Vector, or an ANE Path Vector, is a JSON array
of ANE Names. It is a generalization of BGP path vector. While
standard BGP path vector specifies a sequence of autonomous
systems for a destination IP prefix, the Path Vector defined in
this extension specifies a sequence of ANEs either for a source
PID and a destination PID as in the CostMapData (11.2.3.6 in
[RFC7285]), or for a source endpoint and a destination endpoint as
in the EndpointCostMapData (11.5.1.6 in [RFC7285]).
* Path Vector resource: A Path Vector resource refers to an ALTO
resource which supports the extension defined in this document.
* Path Vector cost type: The Path Vector cost type is a special cost
type, which is specified in Section 6.5. When this cost type is
present in an IRD entry, it indicates that the information
resource is a Path Vector resource. When this cost type is
present in a Filtered Cost Map request or an Endpoint Cost Service
request, it indicates each cost value must be interpreted as a
Path Vector.
* Path Vector request: A Path Vector request refers to the POST
message sent to an ALTO Path Vector resource.
* Path Vector response: A Path Vector response refers to the
multipart/related message returned by a Path Vector resource.
4. Problem Statement
4.1. Design Requirements
This section gives an illustrative example of how an overlay
application can benefit from the extension defined in this document.
Assume that an application has control over a set of flows, which may
go through shared links or switches and share bottlenecks. The
application hopes to schedule the traffic among multiple flows to get
better performance. The capacity region information for those flows
will benefit the scheduling. However, existing cost maps can not
reveal such information.
Specifically, consider a network as shown in Figure 1. The network
has 7 switches (sw1 to sw7) forming a dumb-bell topology. Switches
sw1/sw3 provide access on one side, sw2/sw4 provide access on the
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
other side, and sw5-sw7 form the backbone. End hosts eh1 to eh4 are
connected to access switches sw1 to sw4 respectively. Assume that
the bandwidth of link eh1 -> sw1 and link sw1 -> sw5 is 150 Mbps, and
the bandwidth of the other links is 100 Mbps.
+-----+
| |
--+ sw6 +--
/ | | \
PID1 +-----+ / +-----+ \ +-----+ PID2
eh1__| |_ / \ ____| |__eh2
192.0.2.2 | sw1 | \ +--|--+ +--|--+ / | sw2 | 192.0.2.3
+-----+ \ | | | |/ +-----+
\_| sw5 +---------+ sw7 |
PID3 +-----+ / | | | |\ +-----+ PID4
eh3__| |__/ +-----+ +-----+ \____| |__eh4
192.0.2.4 | sw3 | | sw4 | 192.0.2.5
+-----+ +-----+
bw(eh1--sw1) = bw(sw1--sw5) = 150 Mbps
bw(eh2--sw2) = bw(eh3--sw3) = bw(eh4--sw4) = 100 Mbps
bw(sw1--sw5) = bw(sw3--sw5) = bw(sw2--sw7) = bw(sw4--sw7) = 100 Mbps
bw(sw5--sw6) = bw(sw5--sw7) = bw(sw6--sw7) = 100 Mbps
Figure 1: Raw Network Topology
The single-node ALTO topology abstraction of the network is shown in
Figure 2. Assume the cost map returns a hypothetical cost type
representing the available bandwidth between a source and a
destination.
+----------------------+
{eh1} | | {eh2}
PID1 | | PID2
+------+ +------+
| |
| |
{eh3} | | {eh4}
PID3 | | PID4
+------+ +------+
| |
+----------------------+
Figure 2: Base Single-Node Topology Abstraction
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Now assume the application wants to maximize the total rate of the
traffic among a set of <source, destination> pairs, say eh1 -> eh2
and eh1 -> eh4. Let x denote the transmission rate of eh1 -> eh2 and
y denote the rate of eh1 -> eh4. The objective function is
max(x + y).
With the ALTO Cost Map, the cost between PID1 and PID2 and between
PID1 and PID4 will be 100 Mbps. And the client can get a capacity
region of
x <= 100 Mbps,
y <= 100 Mbps.
With this information, the client may mistakenly think it can achieve
a maximum total rate of 200 Mbps. However, one can easily see that
this rate is infeasible, as there are only two potential cases:
* Case 1: eh1 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4 take different path segments
from sw5 to sw7. For example, if eh1 -> eh2 uses path eh1 -> sw1
-> sw5 -> sw6 -> sw7 -> sw2 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4 uses path eh1 ->
sw1 -> sw5 -> sw7 -> sw4 -> eh4, then the shared bottleneck links
are eh1 -> sw1 and sw1 -> sw5. In this case, the capacity region
is
x <= 100 Mbps
y <= 100 Mbps
x + y <= 150 Mbps
and the real optimal total rate is 150 Mbps.
* Case 2: eh1 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4 take the same path segment from
sw5 to sw7. For example, if eh1 -> eh2 uses path eh1 -> sw1 ->
sw5 -> sw7 -> sw2 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4 also uses path eh1 -> sw1
-> sw5 -> sw7 -> sw4 -> eh4, then the shared bottleneck link is
sw5 -> sw7. In this case, the capacity region is
x <= 100 Mbps
y <= 100 Mbps
x + y <= 100 Mbps
and the real optimal total rate is 100 Mbps.
Clearly, with more accurate and fine-grained information, the
application can gain a better prediction of its traffic and may
orchestrate its resources accordingly. However, to provide such
information, the network needs to expose more details beyond the
simple cost map abstraction. In particular:
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
* The ALTO server must give more details about the network paths
that are traversed by the traffic between a source and a
destination beyond a simple numerical value, which allows the
overlay application to distinguish between Case 1 and Case 2 and
to compute the optimal total rate accordingly.
* The ALTO server must allow the client to distinguish the common
ANE shared by eh1 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4, e.g., eh1 - sw1 and sw1 -
sw5 in Case 1.
* The ALTO server must give details on the properties of the ANEs
used by eh1 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4, e.g., the available bandwidth
between eh1 - sw1, sw1 - sw5, sw5 - sw7, sw5 - sw6, sw6 - sw7, sw7
- sw2, sw7 - sw4, sw2 - eh2, sw4 - eh4 in Case 1.
In general, we can conclude that to support the multiple flow
scheduling use case, the ALTO framework must be extended to satisfy
the following additional requirements:
AR1: An ALTO server must provide essential information on ANEs on
the path of a <source, destination> pair that are critical to the
QoE of the overlay application.
AR2: An ALTO server must provide essential information on how the
paths of different <source, destination> pairs share a common ANE.
AR3: An ALTO server must provide essential information on the
properties associated with the ANEs.
The extension defined in this document proposes a solution to provide
these details.
4.2. Use Cases
While the multiple flow scheduling problem is used to help identify
the additional requirements, the extension defined in this document
can be applied to a wide range of applications. This section
highlights some real use cases that are reported.
4.2.1. Exposing Network Bottlenecks
An important use case of the Path Vector extension is to expose
network bottlenecks. Applications such as large-scale data analytics
can benefit from being aware of the resource constraints exposed by
this extension even if they may have different objectives.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Figure 3 illustrates an example of using ALTO Path Vector as a
standard interface between the job optimizer for a data analytics
system and the network manager. In particular, we assume the
objective of the job optimizer is to minimize the job completion
time.
In this setting, the network-aware job optimizer (e.g., [CLARINET])
takes a query and generates multiple query execution plans (QEB). It
can encode the QEBs as Path Vector requests and send to the ALTO
server. The ALTO server obtains the routing information for the
flows in a QEP and finds links, routers or middleboxes (e.g., a
stateful firewall) that can potentially become bottlenecks of the QEP
(see [NOVA] and [G2] for mechanisms to identify bottleneck links
under different settings). The resource constraint information is
encoded in a Path Vector response and returned to the ALTO client.
With the network resource constraints, the job optimizer may choose
the QEP with the optimal job completion time to be executed. It must
be noted the ALTO framework itself does not offer the capability to
control the traffic. However, certain network managers may offer
ways to enforce resource guarantees, such as on-demand tunnels
([SWAN]), demand vector ([HUG], [UNICORN]), etc. The traffic control
interfaces and mechanisms are out of the scope of this document.
Data schema Queries
| |
\ /
+-------------+ +-----------------+
| ALTO Client | <===============> | Job Optimizer |
+-------------+ +-----------------+
PV | ^ PV !
Request | | Response !
| | !
(Data | | (Network On-demand resource !
Transfer | | Resource allocation, demand !
Intents) | | Constraints) vector, etc. !
v | v
+-------------+ +-----------------+
| ALTO Server | <===============> | Network Manager |
+-------------+ +-----------------+
/ | \
| | |
WAN DC1 DC2
Figure 3: Example Use Case for Data Analytics
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Another example is as illustrated in Figure 4. Consider a network
consisting of multiple sites and a non-blocking core network, i.e.,
the links in the core network have sufficient bandwidth that they
will not become the bottleneck of the data transfers, as similar to
the case of scientific networks.
On-going transfers New transfer requests
\----\ |
| |
v v
+-------------+ +---------------+
| ALTO Client | <===========> | Data Transfer |
+-------------+ | Scheduler |
^ | ^ | PV request +---------------+
| | | \--------------\
| | \--------------\ |
| v PV response | v
+-------------+ +-------------+
| ALTO Server | | ALTO Server |
+-------------+ +-------------+
|| ||
+---------+ +---------+
| Network | | Network |
| Manager | | Manager |
+---------+ +---------+
. .
. _~_ __ . . .
. ( )( ) .___
~v~v~ /--( )------------( )
( )-----/ ( ) ( )
~w~w~ ~^~^~^~ ~v~v~
Site 1 Non-blocking Core Site 2
Figure 4: Example Use Case for Cross-site Bottleneck Discovery
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Site 1:
c d
........................................>
+---+ 10 Gbps +---+ 10 Gbps +----+ 50 Gbps
| A |---------| B |---------| GW |--------- Core
+---+ +---+ +----+
...................
. . f1
. v
a b
Site 2:
d <........................................ c
+---+ 5 Gbps +---+ 10 Gbps +----+ 20 Gbps
| X |--------| Y |---------| GW |--------- Core
+---+ +---+ +----+
....................
. .
. V
e f
Figure 5: Example: Three Flows in Two Sites
With the Path Vector extension, a site can reveal the bottlenecks
inside its own network with necessary information (such as link
capacities) to the ALTO client, instead of providing the full
topology and routing information. The bottleneck information can be
used to analyze the impact of adding/removing data transfer flows,
e.g., using the [G2] framework. For example, assume hosts a, b, c
are in site 1 hosts d, e, f are in site 2, and there are 3 flows in
two sites: a -> b, c -> d, e -> f. For these flows, site 1 returns
a: { b: [ane1] },
c: { d: [ane1, ane2, ane3] }
ane1: bw = 10 Gbps (link: A->B)
ane2: bw = 10 Gbps (link: B->GW)
ane3: bw = 50 Gbps (link: GW->Core)
and site 2 returns
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
c: { d: [anei, aneii, aneiii] }
e: { f: [aneiv] }
anei: bw = 5 Gbps (link Y->X)
aneii: bw = 10 Gbps (link GW->Y)
aneiii: bw = 20 Gbps (link Core->GW)
aneiv: bw = 10 Gbps (link Y->GW)
With the information, the data transfer scheduler can use algorithms
such as the theory on bottleneck structure [G2] to predict the
potential throughput of the flows.
4.2.2. Resource Exposure for CDN and Service Edge
A growing trend in today's applications is to bring storage and
computation closer to the end users for better QoE, such as Content
Delivery Network (CDN), AR/VR, and cloud gaming, as reported in
various documents (e.g., [SEREDGE] and [MOWIE]). Internet Service
Providers may deploy multiple layers of CDN caches, or more generally
service edges, with different latency and available resources.
For example, the figure below illustrates a typical edge-cloud
scenario. The "on-premise" edge nodes are closest to the end hosts
and have the smallest latency, and the site-radio edge node and
access central office (CO) have larger latency but more available
resources.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
+-------------+ +----------------------+
| ALTO Client | <==========> | Application Provider |
+-------------+ +----------------------+
PV | ^ PV |
Request | | Response | Resource allocation,
| | | service establishment,
(End hosts | | (Edge nodes | etc.
and cloud | | and metrics) |
servers) | | |
v | v
+-------------+ +---------------------+
| ALTO Server | <=========> | Cloud-Edge Provider |
+-------------+ +---------------------+
____________________________________/\___________
/ \
| (((o |
|
/_\ _~_ __ __
a (/\_/\) ( ) ( )~( )_
\ /------( )---------( )----\\---( )
_|_ / (______) (___) ( )
|_| -/ Site-radio Access CO (__________)
/---\ Edge Node 1 | Cloud DC
On premise |
/---------/
(((o /
| /
Site-radio /_\ /
Edge Node 2(/\_/\)-----/
/(_____)\
___ / \ ---
b--|_| -/ \--|_|--c
/---\ /---\
On premise On premise
Figure 6: Example Use Case for Service Edge Exposure
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
a: { b: [ane1, ane2, ane3, ane4, ane5],
c: [ane1, ane2, ane3, ane4, ane6],
DC: [ane1, ane2, ane3] }
b: { c: [ane5, ane4, ane6], DC: [ane5, ane4, ane3] }
ane1: latency=5ms cpu=2 memory=8G storage=10T
(on premise, a)
ane2: latency=20ms cpu=4 memory=8G storage=10T
(Site-radio Edge Node 1)
ane3: latency=100ms cpu=8 memory=128G storage=100T
(Access CO)
ane4: latency=20ms cpu=4 memory=8G storage=10T
(Site-radio Edge Node 2)
ane5: latency=5ms cpu=2 memory=8G storage=10T
(on premise, b)
ane6: latency=5ms cpu=2 memory=8G storage=10T
(on premise, c)
Figure 7: Example Service Edge Query Results
With the extension defined in this document, an ALTO server can
selectively reveal the CDNs and service edges that reside along the
paths between different end hosts and/or the cloud servers, together
with their properties such as capabilities (e.g., storage, GPU) and
available Service Level Agreement (SLA) plans. See Figure 7 for an
example where the query is made for sources [a, b] and destinations
[b, c, DC]. Here each ANE represents a service edge and the
properties include access latency, available resources, etc. Note
the properties here are only used for illustration purposes and are
not part of this extension.
With the service edge information, an ALTO client may better conduct
CDN request routing or offload functionalities from the user
equipment to the service edge, with considerations on customized
quality of experience.
5. Path Vector Extension: Overview
This section gives a non-normative overview of the extension defined
in this document. It is assumed that readers are familiar with both
the base protocol [RFC7285] and the Unified Property Map extension
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new].
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
To satisfies the additional requirements, this extension:
1. introduces Abstract Network Element (ANE) as the abstraction of
components in a network whose properties may have an impact on
the end-to-end performance of the traffic handled by those
component,
2. extends the Cost Map and Endpoint Cost Service to convey the ANEs
traversed by the path of a <source, destination> pair as Path
Vectors,
3. uses the Unified Property Map to convey the association between
the ANEs and their properties.
Thus, an ALTO client can learn about the ANEs that are critical to
the QoE of a <source, destination> pair by investigating the
corresponding Path Vector value (AR1), identify common ANEs if an ANE
appears in the Path Vectors of multiple <source, destination> pairs
(AR2), and retrieve the properties of the ANEs by searching the
Unified Property Map (AR3).
5.1. Abstract Network Element
This extension introduces Abstract Network Element (ANE) as an
indirect and network-agnostic way to specify a component or an
aggregation of components of a network whose properties have an
impact on the end-to-end performance for traffic between a source and
a destination.
Abstract network elements allow ALTO servers to focus on common
properties of different types of network components. For example,
the throughput of a flow can be constrained by different components
in a network: the capacity of a physical link, the maximum throughput
of a firewall, the reserved bandwidth of an MPLS tunnel, etc. See
the example below, assume the throughput of the firewall is 100 Mbps
and the capacity for link (A, B) is also 100 Mbps, they result in the
same constraint on the total throughput of f1 and f2. Thus, they are
identical when treated as an ANE.
f1 | ^ f1
| | ----------------->
+----------+ +---+ +---+
| Firewall | | A |-----| B |
+----------+ +---+ +---+
| | ----------------->
v | f2 f2
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
When an ANE is defined by the ALTO server, it is assigned an
identifier, i.e., a string of type ANEName as specified in
Section 6.1, and a set of associated properties.
5.1.1. ANE Domain
In this extension, the associations between ANE and the properties
are conveyed in a Unified Property Map. Thus, ANEs must constitute an
entity domain (Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]), and
each ANE property must be an entity property (Section 5.2 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]).
Specifically, this document defines a new entity domain called "ane"
as specified in Section 6.2 and defines two initial properties for
the ANE domain.
5.1.2. Ephemeral ANE and Persistent ANE
By design, ANEs are ephemeral and not to be used in further requests
to other ALTO resources. More precisely, the corresponding ANE names
are no longer valid beyond the scope of the Path Vector response or
the incremental update stream for a Path Vector request. This has
several benefits including better privacy of the ISPs and more
flexible ANE computation.
For example, an ALTO server may define an ANE for each aggregated
bottleneck link between the sources and destinations specified in the
request. For requests with different sources and destinations, the
bottlenecks may be different but can safely reuse the same ANE names.
The client can still adjust its traffic based on the information but
is difficult to infer the underlying topology with multiple queries.
However, sometimes an ISP may intend to selectively reveal some
"persistent" network components which, opposite to being ephemeral,
have a longer life cycle. For example, an ALTO server may define an
ANE for each service edge cluster. Once a client chooses to use a
service edge, e.g., by deploying some user-defined functions, it may
want to stick to the service edge to avoid the complexity of state
transition or synchronization, and continuously query the properties
of the edge cluster.
This document provides a mechanism to expose such network components
as persistent ANEs. A persistent ANE has a persistent ID that is
registered in a Property Map, together with their properties. See
Section 6.2.4 and Section 6.4.2 for more detailed instructions on how
to identify ephemeral ANEs and persistent ANEs.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
5.1.3. Property Filtering
Resource-constrained ALTO clients may benefit from the filtering of
Path Vector query results at the ALTO server, as an ALTO client may
only require a subset of the available properties.
Specifically, the available properties for a given resource are
announced in the Information Resource Directory as a new capability
called "ane-property-names". The selected properties are specified
in a filter called "ane-property-names" in the request body, and the
response includes and only includes the selected properties for the
ANEs in the response.
The "ane-property-names" capability for Cost Map and for Endpoint
Cost Service is specified in Section 7.2.4 and Section 7.3.4
respectively. The "ane-property-names" filter for Cost Map and
Endpoint Cost Service is specified in Section 7.2.3 and Section 7.3.3
accordingly.
5.2. Path Vector Cost Type
For an ALTO client to correctly interpret the Path Vector, this
extension specifies a new cost type called the Path Vector cost type.
The Path Vector cost type must convey both the interpretation and
semantics in the "cost-mode" and "cost-metric" respectively.
Unfortunately, a single "cost-mode" value cannot fully specify the
interpretation of a Path Vector, which is a compound data type. For
example, in programming languages such as C++, a Path Vector will
have the type of JSONArray<ANEName>.
Instead of extending the "type system" of ALTO, this document takes a
simple and backward compatible approach. Specifically, the "cost-
mode" of the Path Vector cost type is "array", which indicates the
value is a JSON array. Then, an ALTO client must check the value of
the "cost-metric". If the value is "ane-path", it means that the
JSON array should be further interpreted as a path of ANENames.
The Path Vector cost type is specified in Section 6.5.
5.3. Multipart Path Vector Response
For a basic ALTO information resource, a response contains only one
type of ALTO resources, e.g., Network Map, Cost Map, or Property Map.
Thus, only one round of communication is required: An ALTO client
sends a request to an ALTO server, and the ALTO server returns a
response, as shown in Figure 8.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
ALTO client ALTO server
|-------------- Request ---------------->|
|<------------- Response ----------------|
Figure 8: A Typical ALTO Request and Response
The extension defined in this document, on the other hand, involves
two types of information resources: Path Vectors conveyed in an
InfoResourceCostMap (defined in Section 11.2.3.6 of [RFC7285]) or an
InfoResourceEndpointCostMap (defined in Section 11.5.1.6 of
[RFC7285]), and ANE properties conveyed in an InfoResourceProperties
(defined in Section 7.6 of [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]).
Instead of two consecutive message exchanges, the extension defined
in this document enforces one round of communication. Specifically,
the ALTO client must include the source and destination pairs and the
requested ANE properties in a single request, and the ALTO server
must return a single response containing both the Path Vectors and
properties associated with the ANEs in the Path Vectors, as shown in
Figure 9. Since the two parts are bundled together in one response
message, their orders are interchangeable. See Section 7.2.6 and
Section 7.3.6 for details.
ALTO client ALTO server
|------------- PV Request -------------->|
|<----- PV Response (Cost Map Part) -----|
|<--- PV Response (Property Map Part) ---|
Figure 9: The Path Vector Extension Request and Response
This design is based on the following considerations:
1. Since ANEs may be constructed on demand, and potentially based on
the requested properties (See Section 5.1 for more details). If
sources and destinations are not in the same request as the
properties, an ALTO server either cannot construct ANEs on-
demand, or must wait until both requests are received.
2. As ANEs may be constructed on demand, mappings of each ANE to its
underlying network devices and resources can be specific to the
request. In order to respond to the Property Map request
correctly, an ALTO server must store the mapping of each Path
Vector request until the client fully retrieves the property
information. The "stateful" behavior may substantially harm the
server scalability and potentially lead to Denial-of-Service
attacks.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
One approach to realize the one-round communication is to define a
new media type to contain both objects, but this violates modular
design. This document follows the standard-conforming usage of
"multipart/related" media type defined in [RFC2387] to elegantly
combine the objects. Path Vectors are encoded in an
InfoResourceCostMap or an InfoResourceEndpointCostMap, and the
Property Map is encoded in an InfoResourceProperties. They are
encapsulated as parts of a multipart message. The modular
composition allows ALTO servers and clients to reuse the data models
of the existing information resources. Specifically, this document
addresses the following practical issues using "multipart/related".
5.3.1. Identifying the Media Type of the Root Object
ALTO uses media type to indicate the type of an entry in the
Information Resource Directory (IRD) (e.g., "application/alto-
costmap+json" for Cost Map and "application/alto-endpointcost+json"
for Endpoint Cost Service). Simply putting "multipart/related" as
the media type, however, makes it impossible for an ALTO client to
identify the type of service provided by related entries.
To address this issue, this document uses the "type" parameter to
indicate the root object of a multipart/related message. For a Cost
Map resource, the "media-type" field in the IRD entry is "multipart/
related" with the parameter "type=application/alto-costmap+json"; for
an Endpoint Cost Service, the parameter is "type=application/alto-
endpointcost+json".
5.3.2. References to Part Messages
As the response of a Path Vector resource is a multipart message with
two different parts, it is important that each part can be uniquely
identified. Following the designs of [RFC8895], this extension
requires that an ALTO server assigns a unique identifier to each part
of the multipart response message. This identifier, referred to as a
Part Resource ID (See Section 6.6 for details), is present in the
part message's "Content-ID" header. By concatenating the Part
Resource ID to the identifier of the Path Vector request, an ALTO
server/client can uniquely identify the Path Vector Part or the
Property Map part.
6. Specification: Basic Data Types
6.1. ANE Name
An ANE Name is encoded as a JSON string with the same format as that
of the type PIDName (Section 10.1 of [RFC7285]).
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
The type ANEName is used in this document to indicate a string of
this format.
6.2. ANE Domain
The ANE domain associates property values with the Abstract Network
Elements in a Property Map. Accordingly, the ANE domain always
depends on a Property Map.
It must be noted that the term "domain" here does not refer to a
network domain. Rather, it is inherited from the "entity domain"
defined in Sec 3.2 in [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new] that
represents the set of valid entities defined by an ALTO information
resource (called the defining information resource).
6.2.1. Entity Domain Type
ane
6.2.2. Domain-Specific Entity Identifier
The entity identifiers are the ANE Names in the associated Property
Map.
6.2.3. Hierarchy and Inheritance
There is no hierarchy or inheritance for properties associated with
ANEs.
6.2.4. Media Type of Defining Resource
The defining resource for entity domain type "ane" MUST be a Property
Map, i.e., the media type of defining resources is:
application/alto-propmap+json
Specifically, for ephemeral ANEs that appear in a Path Vector
response, their entity domain names MUST be exactly ".ane" and the
defining resource of these ANEs is the Property Map part of the
multipart response. Meanwhile, for persistent ANEs whose entity
domain name has the format of "PROPMAP.ane" where PROPMAP is the name
of a Property Map resource, PROPMAP is the defining resource of these
ANEs. Persistent entities are "persistent" because standalone
queries can be made by an ALTO client to their defining resources
when the connection to the Path Vector service is closed.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
For example, the defining resource of an ephemeral ANE whose entity
identifier is ".ane:NET1" is the Property Map part that contains this
identifier. The defining resource of a persistent ANE whose entity
identifier is "dc-props.ane:DC1" is the Property Map with the
resource ID "dc-props".
6.3. ANE Property Name
An ANE Property Name is encoded as a JSON string with the same format
as that of Entity Property Name (Section 5.2.2 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]).
6.4. Initial ANE Property Types
In this document, two initial ANE property types are specified, "max-
reservable-bandwidth" and "persistent-entity-id".
Note that the two property types defined in this document do not
depend on any information resource, so their ResourceID part must be
empty.
6.4.1. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth
The maximum reservable bandwidth property ("max-reservable-
bandwidth") stands for the maximum bandwidth that can be reserved for
all the traffic that traverses an ANE. The value MUST be encoded as
a non-negative numerical cost value as defined in Section 6.1.2.1 of
[RFC7285] and the unit is bit per second (bps). If this property is
requested by the ALTO client but not present for an ANE in the server
response, it MUST be interpreted as that the property is not defined
for the ANE.
This property can be offered in a setting where the ALTO server is
part of a network system that provides on-demand resource allocation
and the ALTO client is part of a user application. One existing
example is [NOVA]: the ALTO server is part of an SDN controller and
exposes a list of traversed network elements and associated link
bandwidth to the client. The encoding in [NOVA] differs from the
Path Vector response defined in this document that the Path Vector
part and Property Map part are put in the same JSON object.
In such a framework, the ALTO server exposes resource (e.g.,
reservable bandwidth) availability information to the ALTO client.
How the client makes resource requests based on the information and
how the resource allocation is achieved respectively depend on
interfaces between the management system and the users or a higher-
layer protocol (e.g., SDN network intents or MPLS tunnels), which are
out of the scope of this document.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
6.4.2. Persistent Entity ID
The persistent entity ID property is the entity identifier of the
persistent ANE which an ephemeral ANE presents (See Section 5.1.2 for
details). The value of this property is encoded with the format
EntityID defined in Section 5.1.3 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new].
In this format, the entity ID combines:
* a defining information resource for the ANE on which a
"persistent-entity-id" is queried, which is the Property Map
resource defining the ANE as a persistent entity, together with
the properties;
* the persistent name of the ANE in that Property Map.
With this format, the client has all the needed information for
further standalone query properties on the persistent ANE.
6.4.3. Examples
To illustrate the use of "max-reservable-bandwidth", consider the
following network with 5 nodes. Assume the client wants to query the
maximum reservable bandwidth from H1 to H2. An ALTO server may split
the network into two ANEs: "ane1" that represents the subnetwork with
routers A, B, and C, and "ane2" that represents the subnetwork with
routers B, D and E. The maximum reservable bandwidth for "ane1" is
15 Mbps (using path A->C->B) and the maximum reservable bandwidth for
"ane2" is 20 Mbps (using path B->D->E).
20 Mbps 20 Mbps
10 Mbps +---+ +---+ +---+
/----| B |---| D |----| E |---- H2
+---+/ +---+ +---+ +---+
H1 ----| A | 15 Mbps|
+---+\ +---+
\----| C |
15 Mbps +---+
To illustrate the use of "persistent-entity-id", consider the
scenario in Figure 6. As the life cycle of service edges are
typically long, they may contain information that is not specific to
the query. Such information can be stored in an individual unified
property map and later be accessed by an ALTO client.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
For example, "ane1" in Figure 7 represents the on-premise service
edge closest to host a. Assume the properties of the service edges
are provided in a unified property map called "se-props" and the ID
of the on-premise service edge is "9a0b55f7-7442-4d56-8a2c-
b4cc6a8e3aa1", the "persistent-entity-id" of "ane1" will be "se-
props.ane:9a0b55f7-7442-4d56-8a2c-b4cc6a8e3aa1". With this
persistent entity ID, an ALTO client may send queries to the "se-
props" resource with the entity ID ".ane:9a0b55f7-7442-4d56-8a2c-
b4cc6a8e3aa1".
6.5. Path Vector Cost Type
This document defines a new cost type, which is referred to as the
Path Vector cost type. An ALTO server MUST offer this cost type if
it supports the extension defined in this document.
6.5.1. Cost Metric: ane-path
The cost metric "ane-path" indicates the value of such a cost type
conveys an array of ANE names, where each ANE name uniquely
represents an ANE traversed by traffic from a source to a
destination.
An ALTO client MUST interpret the Path Vector as if the traffic
between a source and a destination logically traverses the ANEs in
the same order as they appear in the Path Vector.
6.5.2. Cost Mode: array
The cost mode "array" indicates that every cost value in the response
body of a (Filtered) Cost Map or an Endpoint Cost Service MUST be
interpreted as a JSON array object.
Note that this cost mode only requires the cost value to be a JSON
array of JSONValue. However, an ALTO server that enables this
extension MUST return a JSON array of ANEName (Section 6.1) when the
cost metric is "ane-path".
6.6. Part Resource ID and Part Content ID
A Part Resource ID is encoded as a JSON string with the same format
as that of the type ResourceID (Section 10.2 of [RFC7285]).
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Even though the client-id assigned to a Path Vector request and the
Part Resource ID MAY contain up to 64 characters by their own
definition, their concatenation (see Section 5.3.2) MUST also conform
to the same length constraint. The same requirement applies to the
resource ID of the Path Vector resource, too. Thus, it is
RECOMMENDED to limit the length of resource ID and client ID related
to a Path Vector resource to 31 characters.
A Part Content ID conforms to the format of msg-id as specified in
[RFC2387] and [RFC5322]. Specifically, it has the following format:
"<" PART-RESOURCE-ID "@" DOMAIN-NAME ">"
PART-RESOURCE-ID: PART-RESOURCE-ID has the same format as the Part
Resource ID. It is used to identify whether a part message is a
Path Vector or a Property Map.
DOMAIN-NAME: DOMAIN-NAME has the same format as dot-atom-text
specified in Section 3.2.3 of [RFC5322]. It must be the domain
name of the ALTO server.
7. Specification: Service Extensions
7.1. Notations
This document uses the same syntax and notations as introduced in
Section 8.2 of RFC 7285 [RFC7285] to specify the extensions to
existing ALTO resources and services.
7.2. Multipart Filtered Cost Map for Path Vector
This document introduces a new ALTO resource called multipart
Filtered Cost Map resource, which allows an ALTO server to provide
other ALTO resources associated with the Cost Map resource in the
same response.
7.2.1. Media Type
The media type of the multipart Filtered Cost Map resource is
"multipart/related;type=application/alto-costmap+json".
7.2.2. HTTP Method
The multipart Filtered Cost Map is requested using the HTTP POST
method.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
7.2.3. Accept Input Parameters
The input parameters of the multipart Filtered Cost Map are supplied
in the body of an HTTP POST request. This document extends the input
parameters to a Filtered Cost Map, which is defined as a JSON object
of type ReqFilteredCostMap in Section 4.1.2 of RFC 8189 [RFC8189],
with a data format indicated by the media type "application/alto-
costmapfilter+json", which is a JSON object of type
PVReqFilteredCostMap:
object {
[EntityPropertyName ane-property-names<0..*>;]
} PVReqFilteredCostMap : ReqFilteredCostMap;
with fields:
ane-property-names: A list of selected ANE properties to be included
in the response. Each property in this list MUST match one of the
supported ANE properties indicated in the resource's "ane-
property-names" capability (See Section 7.2.4). If the field is
NOT present, it MUST be interpreted as an empty list.
Example: Consider the network in Figure 1. If an ALTO client wants
to query the "max-reservable-bandwidth" between PID1 and PID2, it can
submit the following request.
POST /costmap/pv HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: multipart/related;type=application/alto-costmap+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: 201
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
{
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
},
"pids": {
"srcs": [ "PID1" ],
"dsts": [ "PID2" ]
},
"ane-property-names": [ "max-reservable-bandwidth" ]
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
7.2.4. Capabilities
The multipart Filtered Cost Map resource extends the capabilities
defined in Section 4.1.1 of [RFC8189]. The capabilities are defined
by a JSON object of type PVFilteredCostMapCapabilities:
object {
[EntityPropertyName ane-property-names<0..*>;]
} PVFilteredCostMapCapabilities : FilteredCostMapCapabilities;
with fields:
cost-type-names: The "cost-type-names" field MUST include the Path
Vector cost type, unless explicitly documented by a future
extension. This also implies that the Path Vector cost type MUST
be defined in the "cost-types" of the Information Resource
Directory's "meta" field.
cost-constraints: If the "cost-type-names" field includes the Path
Vector cost type, "cost-constraints" field MUST be "false" or not
present unless specifically instructed by a future document.
testable-cost-type-names: If the "cost-type-names" field includes
the Path Vector cost type and the "testable-cost-type-names" field
is present, the Path Vector cost type MUST NOT be included in the
"testable-cost-type-names" field unless specifically instructed by
a future document.
ane-property-names: Defines a list of ANE properties that can be
returned. If the field is NOT present, it MUST be interpreted as
an empty list, indicating the ALTO server cannot provide any ANE
property.
7.2.5. Uses
This member MUST include the resource ID of the network map based on
which the PIDs are defined. If this resource supports "persistent-
entity-id", it MUST also include the defining resources of persistent
ANEs that may appear in the response.
7.2.6. Response
The response MUST indicate an error, using ALTO protocol error
handling, as defined in Section 8.5 of [RFC7285], if the request is
invalid.
The "Content-Type" header of the response MUST be "multipart/related"
as defined by [RFC2387] with the following parameters:
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
type: The type parameter MUST be "application/alto-costmap+json".
Note that [RFC2387] permits both parameters with and without the
double quotes.
start: The start parameter is as defined in [RFC2387]. If present,
it MUST have the same value as the "Content-ID" header of the Path
Vector part.
boundary: The boundary parameter is as defined in [RFC2387].
The body of the response MUST consist of two parts:
* The Path Vector part MUST include "Content-ID" and "Content-Type"
in its header. The "Content-Type" MUST be "application/alto-
costmap+json". The value of "Content-ID" MUST have the same
format as the Part Content ID as specified in Section 6.6.
The body of the Path Vector part MUST be a JSON object with the
same format as defined in Section 11.2.3.6 of [RFC7285] when the
"cost-type" field is present in the input parameters and MUST be a
JSON object with the same format as defined in Section 4.1.3 of
[RFC8189] if the "multi-cost-types" field is present. The JSON
object MUST include the "vtag" field in the "meta" field, which
provides the version tag of the returned CostMapData. The
resource ID of the version tag MUST follow the format of
resource-id '.' part-resource-id
where "resource-id" is the resource Id of the Path Vector
resource, and "part-resource-id" has the same value as the PART-
RESOURCE-ID in the "Content-ID" of the Path Vector part. The
"meta" field MUST also include the "dependent-vtags" field, whose
value is a single-element array to indicate the version tag of the
network map used, where the network map is specified in the "uses"
attribute of the multipart Filtered Cost Map resource in IRD.
* The Unified Property Map part MUST also include "Content-ID" and
"Content-Type" in its header. The "Content-Type" MUST be
"application/alto-propmap+json". The value of "Content-ID" MUST
have the same format as the Part Content ID as specified in
Section 6.6.
The body of the Unified Property Map part is a JSON object with
the same format as defined in Section 4.6 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The JSON object MUST include
the "dependent-vtags" field in the "meta" field. The value of the
"dependent-vtags" field MUST be an array of VersionTag objects as
defined by Section 10.3 of [RFC7285]. The "vtag" of the Path
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Vector part MUST be included in the "dependent-vtags". If
"persistent-entity-id" is requested, the version tags of the
dependent resources that MAY expose the entities in the response
MUST also be included.
The PropertyMapData has one member for each ANEName that appears
in the Path Vector part, which is an entity identifier belonging
to the self-defined entity domain as defined in Section 5.1.2.3 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The EntityProps for each ANE
has one member for each property that is both 1) associated with
the ANE, and 2) specified in the "ane-property-names" in the
request. If the Path Vector cost type is not included in the
"cost-type" field or the "multi-cost-type" field, the "property-
map" field MUST be present and the value MUST be an empty object
({}).
A complete and valid response MUST include both the Path Vector part
and the Property Map part in the multipart message. If any part is
NOT present, the client MUST discard the received information and
send another request if necessary.
According to [RFC2387], the Path Vector part, whose media type is the
same as the "type" parameter of the multipart response message, is
the root object. Thus, it is the element the application processes
first. Even though the "start" parameter allows it to be placed
anywhere in the part sequence, it is RECOMMENDED that the parts
arrive in the same order as they are processed, i.e., the Path Vector
part is always put as the first part, followed by the Property Map
part. When doing so, an ALTO server MAY choose not to set the
"start" parameter, which implies the first part is the root object.
Example: Consider the network in Figure 1. The response of the
example request in Section 7.2.3 is as follows, where "ANE1"
represents the aggregation of all the switches in the network.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 821
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example-1;
type=application/alto-costmap+json
--example-1
Content-ID: <costmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
{
"meta": {
"vtag": {
"resource-id": "filtered-cost-map-pv.costmap",
"tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a"
},
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "my-default-networkmap",
"tag": "75ed013b3cb58f896e839582504f6228"
}
],
"cost-type": { "cost-mode": "array", "cost-metric": "ane-path" }
},
"cost-map": {
"PID1": { "PID2": ["ANE1"] }
}
}
--example-1
Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"meta": {
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "filtered-cost-map-pv.costmap",
"tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a"
}
]
},
"property-map": {
".ane:ANE1": { "max-reservable-bandwidth": 100000000 }
}
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
7.3. Multipart Endpoint Cost Service for Path Vector
This document introduces a new ALTO resource called multipart
Endpoint Cost Service, which allows an ALTO server to provide other
ALTO resources associated with the Endpoint Cost Service resource in
the same response.
7.3.1. Media Type
The media type of the multipart Endpoint Cost Service resource is
"multipart/related;type=application/alto-endpointcost+json".
7.3.2. HTTP Method
The multipart Endpoint Cost Service resource is requested using the
HTTP POST method.
7.3.3. Accept Input Parameters
The input parameters of the multipart Endpoint Cost Service resource
are supplied in the body of an HTTP POST request. This document
extends the input parameters to an Endpoint Cost Service, which is
defined as a JSON object of type ReqEndpointCost in Section 4.2.2 in
RFC 8189 [RFC8189], with a data format indicated by the media type
"application/alto-endpointcostparams+json", which is a JSON object of
type PVReqEndpointCost:
object {
[EntityPropertyName ane-property-names<0..*>;]
} PVReqEndpointcost : ReqEndpointcostMap;
with fields:
ane-property-names: This document defines the "ane-property-names"
in PVReqEndpointcost as the same as in PVReqFilteredCostMap. See
Section 7.2.3.
Example: Consider the network in Figure 1. If an ALTO client wants
to query the "max-reservable-bandwidth" between eh1 and eh2, it can
submit the following request.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
POST /ecs/pv HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: multipart/related;type=application/alto-endpointcost+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: 222
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
{
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
},
"endpoints": {
"srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
"dsts": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.18" ]
},
"ane-property-names": [ "max-reservable-bandwidth" ]
}
7.3.4. Capabilities
The capabilities of the multipart Endpoint Cost Service resource are
defined by a JSON object of type PVEndpointcostCapabilities, which is
defined as the same as PVFilteredCostMapCapabilities. See
Section 7.2.4.
7.3.5. Uses
If this resource supports "persistent-entity-id", it MUST also
include the defining resources of persistent ANEs that may appear in
the response.
7.3.6. Response
The response MUST indicate an error, using ALTO protocol error
handling, as defined in Section 8.5 of [RFC7285], if the request is
invalid.
The "Content-Type" header of the response MUST be "multipart/related"
as defined by [RFC7285] with the following parameters:
type: The type parameter MUST be "application/alto-
endpointcost+json".
start: The start parameter is as defined in Section 7.2.6.
boundary: The boundary parameter is as defined in [RFC2387].
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
The body MUST consist of two parts:
* The Path Vector part MUST include "Content-ID" and "Content-Type"
in its header. The "Content-Type" MUST be "application/alto-
endpointcost+json". The value of "Content-ID" MUST have the same
format as the Part Content ID as specified in Section 6.6.
The body of the Path Vector part MUST be a JSON object with the
same format as defined in Section 11.5.1.6 of [RFC7285] when the
"cost-type" field is present in the input parameters and MUST be a
JSON object with the same format as defined in Section 4.1.3 of
[RFC8189] if the "multi-cost-types" field is present. The JSON
object MUST include the "vtag" field in the "meta" field, which
provides the version tag of the returned EndpointCostMapData. The
resource ID of the version tag MUST follow the format of
resource-id '.' part-resource-id
where "resource-id" is the resource Id of the Path Vector
resource, and "part-resource-id" has the same value as the PART-
RESOURCE-ID in the "Content-ID" of the Path Vector part.
* The Unified Property Map part MUST also include "Content-ID" and
"Content-Type" in its header. The "Content-Type" MUST be
"application/alto-propmap+json". The value of "Content-ID" MUST
have the same format as the Part Content ID as specified in
Section 6.6.
The body of the Unified Property Map part MUST be a JSON object
with the same format as defined in Section 4.6 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The JSON object MUST include
the "dependent-vtags" field in the "meta" field. The value of the
"dependent-vtags" field MUST be an array of VersionTag objects as
defined by Section 10.3 of [RFC7285]. The "vtag" of the Path
Vector part MUST be included in the "dependent-vtags". If
"persistent-entity-id" is requested, the version tags of the
dependent resources that MAY expose the entities in the response
MUST also be included.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
The PropertyMapData has one member for each ANEName that appears
in the Path Vector part, which is an entity identifier belonging
to the self-defined entity domain as defined in Section 5.1.2.3 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The EntityProps for each ANE
has one member for each property that is both 1) associated with
the ANE, and 2) specified in the "ane-property-names" in the
request. If the Path Vector cost type is not included in the
"cost-type" field or the "multi-cost-type" field, the "property-
map" field MUST be present and the value MUST be an empty object
({}).
A complete and valid response MUST include both the Path Vector part
and the Property Map part in the multipart message. If any part is
NOT present, the client MUST discard the received information and
send another request if necessary.
According to [RFC2387], the Path Vector part, whose media type is the
same as the "type" parameter of the multipart response message, is
the root object. Thus, it is the element the application processes
first. Even though the "start" parameter allows it to be placed
anywhere in the part sequence, it is RECOMMENDED that the parts
arrive in the same order as they are processed, i.e., the Path Vector
part is always put as the first part, followed by the Property Map
part. When doing so, an ALTO server MAY choose not to set the
"start" parameter, which implies the first part is the root object.
Example: Consider the network in Figure 1. The response of the
example request in Section 7.3.3 is as follows.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 810
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example-1;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json
--example-1
Content-ID: <ecs@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta": {
"vtag": {
"resource-id": "ecs-pv.ecs",
"tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a"
},
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "my-default-networkmap",
"tag": "75ed013b3cb58f896e839582504f6228"
}
],
"cost-type": { "cost-mode": "array", "cost-metric": "ane-path" }
},
"cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": { "ipv4:192.0.2.18": ["ANE1"] }
}
}
--example-1
Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"meta": {
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "ecs-pv.ecs",
"tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a"
}
]
},
"property-map": {
".ane:ANE1": { "max-reservable-bandwidth": 100000000 }
}
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
8. Examples
This section lists some examples of Path Vector queries and the
corresponding responses. Some long lines are truncated for better
readability.
8.1. Example: Setup
----- L1
/
PID1 +----------+ 10 Gbps +----------+ PID3
192.0.2.0/28+-+ +------+ +---------+ +--+192.0.2.32/28
| | MEC1 | | | | 2001:DB8::3:0/16
| +------+ | +-----+ |
PID2 | | | +----------+
192.0.2.16/28+-+ | | NET3
| | | 15 Gbps
| | | \
+----------+ | -------- L2
NET1 |
+----------+
| +------+ | PID4
| | MEC2 | +--+192.0.2.48/28
| +------+ | 2001:DB8::4:0/16
+----------+
NET2
Figure 10: Examples of ANE Properties
In this document, Figure 10 is used to illustrate the message
contents. There are 3 sub-networks (NET1, NET2 and NET3) and two
interconnection links (L1 and L2). It is assumed that each sub-
network has sufficiently large bandwidth to be reserved.
8.2. Example: Information Resource Directory
To give a comprehensive example of the extension defined in this
document, we consider the network in Figure 10. Assume that the ALTO
server provides the following information resources:
* "my-default-networkmap": A Network Map resource which contains the
PIDs in the network.
* "filtered-cost-map-pv": A Multipart Filtered Cost Map resource for
Path Vector, which exposes the "max-reservable-bandwidth" property
for the PIDs in "my-default-networkmap".
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
* "ane-props": A filtered Unified Property resource that exposes the
information for persistent ANEs in the network.
* "endpoint-cost-pv": A Multipart Endpoint Cost Service for Path
Vector, which exposes the "max-reservable-bandwidth" and the
"persistent-entity-id" properties.
* "update-pv": An Update Stream service, which provides the
incremental update service for the "endpoint-cost-pv" service.
* "multicost-pv": A Multipart Endpoint Cost Service with both Multi-
Cost and Path Vector.
Below is the Information Resource Directory of the example ALTO
server. To enable the extension defined in this document, the "path-
vector" cost type (Section 6.5) is defined in the "cost-types" of the
"meta" field, and is included in the "cost-type-names" of resources
"filtered-cost-map-pv" and "endpoint-cost-pv".
{
"meta": {
"cost-types": {
"path-vector": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
},
"num-rc": {
"cost-mode": "numerical",
"cost-metric": "routingcost"
}
}
},
"resources": {
"my-default-networkmap": {
"uri" : "https://alto.example.com/networkmap",
"media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json"
},
"filtered-cost-map-pv": {
"uri": "https://alto.example.com/costmap/pv",
"media-type": "multipart/related;
type=application/alto-costmap+json",
"accepts": "application/alto-costmapfilter+json",
"capabilities": {
"cost-type-names": [ "path-vector" ],
"ane-property-names": [ "max-reservable-bandwidth" ]
},
"uses": [ "my-default-networkmap" ]
},
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
"ane-props": {
"uri": "https://alto.example.com/ane-props",
"media-type": "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accepts": "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"capabilities": {
"mappings": {
".ane": [ "cpu" ]
}
}
},
"endpoint-cost-pv": {
"uri": "https://alto.exmaple.com/endpointcost/pv",
"media-type": "multipart/related;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json",
"accepts": "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json",
"capabilities": {
"cost-type-names": [ "path-vector" ],
"ane-property-names": [
"max-reservable-bandwidth", "persistent-entity-id"
]
},
"uses": [ "ane-props" ]
},
"update-pv": {
"uri": "https://alto.example.com/updates/pv",
"media-type": "text/event-stream",
"uses": [ "endpoint-cost-pv" ],
"accepts": "application/alto-updatestreamparams+json",
"capabilities": {
"support-stream-control": true
}
},
"multicost-pv": {
"uri": "https://alto.exmaple.com/endpointcost/mcpv",
"media-type": "multipart/related;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json",
"accepts": "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json",
"capabilities": {
"cost-type-names": [ "path-vector", "num-rc" ],
"max-cost-types": 2,
"testable-cost-type-names": [ "num-rc" ],
"ane-property-names": [
"max-reservable-bandwidth", "persistent-entity-id"
]
},
"uses": [ "ane-props" ]
}
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
}
8.3. Example: Multipart Filtered Cost Map
The following examples demonstrate the request to the "filtered-cost-
map-pv" resource and the corresponding response.
The request uses the "path-vector" cost type in the "cost-type"
field. The "ane-property-names" field is missing, indicating that
the client only requests for the Path Vector but not the ANE
properties.
The response consists of two parts. The first part returns the array
of ANEName for each source and destination pair. There are two ANEs,
where "L1" represents the interconnection link L1, and "L2"
represents the interconnection link L2.
The second part returns an empty Property Map. Note that the ANE
entries are omitted since they have no properties (See Section 3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]).
POST /costmap/pv HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: multipart/related;type=application/alto-costmap+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: 153
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
{
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
},
"pids": {
"srcs": [ "PID1" ],
"dsts": [ "PID3", "PID4" ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 860
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example-1;
type=application/alto-costmap+json
--example-1
Content-ID: <costmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
{
"meta": {
"vtag": {
"resource-id": "filtered-cost-map-pv.costmap",
"tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a"
},
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "my-default-networkmap",
"tag": "75ed013b3cb58f896e839582504f6228"
}
],
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
}
},
"cost-map": {
"PID1": {
"PID3": [ "L1" ],
"PID4": [ "L1", "L2" ]
}
}
}
--example-1
Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"meta": {
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "filtered-cost-map-pv.costmap",
"tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a"
}
]
},
"property-map": {
}
}
8.4. Example: Multipart Endpoint Cost Service Resource
The following examples demonstrate the request to the "endpoint-cost-
pv" resource and the corresponding response.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
The request uses the Path Vector cost type in the "cost-type" field,
and queries the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth ANE property and the
Persistent Entity property for two IPv4 source and destination pairs
(192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.2 and 192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.50) and one IPv6
source and destination pair (2001:DB8::3:1 -> 2001:DB8::4:1).
The response consists of two parts. The first part returns the array
of ANEName for each valid source and destination pair. As one can
see in Figure 10, flow 192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.2 traverses NET2, L1 and
NET1, and flows 192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.50 and 2001:DB8::3:1 ->
2001:DB8::4:1 traverse NET2, L2 and NET3.
The second part returns the requested properties of ANEs. Assume
NET1, NET2 and NET3 has sufficient bandwidth and their "max-
reservable-bandwidth" values are set to a sufficiently large number
(50 Gbps in this case). On the other hand, assume there are no prior
reservation on L1 and L2, and their "max-reservable-bandwidth" values
are the corresponding link capacity (10 Gbps for L1 and 15 Gbps for
L2).
Both NET1 and NET2 have a mobile edge deployed, i.e., MEC1 in NET1
and MEC2 in NET2. Assume the ANEName for MEC1 and MEC2 are "MEC1"
and "MEC2" and their properties can be retrieved from the Property
Map "ane-props". Thus, the "persistent-entity-id" property of NET1
and NET3 are "ane-props.ane:MEC1" and "ane-props.ane:MEC2"
respectively.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
POST /endpointcost/pv HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: multipart/related;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: 362
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
{
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
},
"endpoints": {
"srcs": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.34",
"ipv6:2001:DB8::3:1"
],
"dsts": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.2",
"ipv4:192.0.2.50",
"ipv6:2001:DB8::4:1"
]
},
"ane-property-names": [
"max-reservable-bandwidth",
"persistent-entity-id"
]
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 1433
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example-2;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json
--example-2
Content-ID: <ecs@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta": {
"vtags": {
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv.ecs",
"tag": "bb6bb72eafe8f9bdc4f335c7ed3b10822a391cef"
},
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
}
},
"endpoint-cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.34": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": [ "NET3", "L1", "NET1" ],
"ipv4:192.0.2.50": [ "NET3", "L2", "NET2" ]
},
"ipv6:2001:DB8::3:1": {
"ipv6:2001:DB8::4:1": [ "NET3", "L2", "NET2" ]
}
}
}
--example-2
Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"meta": {
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv.ecs",
"tag": "bb6bb72eafe8f9bdc4f335c7ed3b10822a391cef"
},
{
"resource-id": "ane-props",
"tag": "bf3c8c1819d2421c9a95a9d02af557a3"
}
]
},
"property-map": {
".ane:NET1": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000,
"persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC1"
},
".ane:NET2": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000,
"persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC2"
},
".ane:NET3": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000
},
".ane:L1": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 10000000000
},
".ane:L2": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 15000000000
}
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
}
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, an advanced ALTO server may obfuscate
the response in order to preserve its own privacy or conform to its
own policies. For example, an ALTO server may choose to aggregate
NET1 and L1 as a new ANE with ANE name "AGGR1", and aggregate NET2
and L2 as a new ANE with ANE name "AGGR2". The "max-reservable-
bandwidth" of "AGGR1" takes the value of L1, which is smaller than
that of NET1, and the "persistent-entity-id" of "AGGR1" takes the
value of NET1. The properties of "AGGR2" are computed in a similar
way and the obfuscated response is as shown below. Note that the
obfuscation of Path Vector responses is implementation-specific and
is out of the scope of this document, and developers may refer to
Section 11 for further references.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 1280
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example-2;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json
--example-2
Content-ID: <ecs@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta": {
"vtags": {
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv.ecs",
"tag": "bb6bb72eafe8f9bdc4f335c7ed3b10822a391cef"
},
"cost-type": {
"cost-mode": "array",
"cost-metric": "ane-path"
}
},
"endpoint-cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.34": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": [ "NET3", "AGGR1" ],
"ipv4:192.0.2.50": [ "NET3", "AGGR2" ]
},
"ipv6:2001:DB8::3:1": {
"ipv6:2001:DB8::4:1": [ "NET3", "AGGR2" ]
}
}
}
--example-2
Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
{
"meta": {
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv.ecs",
"tag": "bb6bb72eafe8f9bdc4f335c7ed3b10822a391cef"
},
{
"resource-id": "ane-props",
"tag": "bf3c8c1819d2421c9a95a9d02af557a3"
}
]
},
"property-map": {
".ane:AGGR1": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 10000000000,
"persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC1"
},
".ane:AGGR2": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 15000000000,
"persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC2"
},
".ane:NET3": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000
}
}
}
8.5. Example: Incremental Updates
In this example, an ALTO client subscribes to the incremental update
for the multipart Endpoint Cost Service resource "endpoint-cost-pv".
POST /updates/pv HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: text/event-stream
Content-Type: application/alto-updatestreamparams+json
Content-Length: 112
{
"add": {
"ecspvsub1": {
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv",
"input": <ecs-input>
}
}
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Based on the server-side process defined in [RFC8895], the ALTO
server will send the "control-uri" first using Server-Sent Event
(SSE), followed by the full response of the multipart message.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Type: text/event-stream
event: application/alto-updatestreamcontrol+json
data: {"control-uri": "https://alto.example.com/updates/streams/123"}
event: multipart/related;boundary=example-3;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json,ecspvsub1
data: --example-3
data: Content-ID: <ecsmap@alto.example.com>
data: Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
data:
data: <endpoint-cost-map-entry>
data: --example-3
data: Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
data: Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
data:
data: <property-map-entry>
data: --example-3--
When the contents change, the ALTO server will publish the updates
for each node in this tree separately.
event: application/merge-patch+json, ecspvsub1.ecsmap
data: <Merge patch for endpoint-cost-map-update>
event: application/merge-patch+json, ecspvsub1.propmap
data: <Merge patch for property-map-update>
8.6. Example: Multi-cost
The following examples demonstrate the request to the "multicost-pv"
resource and the corresponding response.
The request asks for two cost types: the first is the Path Vector
cost type, and the second is a numerical routing cost. It also
queries the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth ANE property and the
Persistent Entity property for two IPv4 source and destination pairs
(192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.2 and 192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.50) and one IPv6
source and destination pair (2001:DB8::3:1 -> 2001:DB8::4:1).
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
The response consists of two parts. The first part returns a
JSONArray that contains two JSONValue for each requested source and
destination pair: the first JSONValue is a JSONArray of ANENames,
which is the value of the Path Vector cost type, and the second
JSONValue is a JSONNumber which is the value of the routing cost.
The second part is the same as in Section 8.4
POST /endpointcost/mcpv HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: multipart/related;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: 433
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{ "cost-mode": "array", "cost-metric": "ane-path" },
{ "cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost" }
],
"endpoints": {
"srcs": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.34",
"ipv6:2001:DB8::3:1"
],
"dsts": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.2",
"ipv4:192.0.2.50",
"ipv6:2001:DB8::4:1"
]
},
"ane-property-names": [
"max-reservable-bandwidth",
"persistent-entity-id"
]
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 1366
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=example-4;
type=application/alto-endpointcost+json
--example-4
Content-ID: <ecs@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta": {
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
"vtags": {
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv.ecs",
"tag": "bb6bb72eafe8f9bdc4f335c7ed3b10822a391cef"
},
"multi-cost-types": [
{ "cost-mode": "array", "cost-metric": "ane-path" },
{ "cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost" }
]
},
"endpoint-cost-map": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.34": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": [[ "NET3", "AGGR1" ], 1],
"ipv4:192.0.2.50": [[ "NET3", "AGGR2" ], 1]
},
"ipv6:2001:DB8::3:1": {
"ipv6:2001:DB8::4:1": [[ "NET3", "AGGR2" ], 1]
}
}
}
--example-4
Content-ID: <propmap@alto.example.com>
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"meta": {
"dependent-vtags": [
{
"resource-id": "endpoint-cost-pv.ecs",
"tag": "bb6bb72eafe8f9bdc4f335c7ed3b10822a391cef"
},
{
"resource-id": "ane-props",
"tag": "bf3c8c1819d2421c9a95a9d02af557a3"
}
]
},
"property-map": {
".ane:AGGR1": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 10000000000,
"persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC1"
},
".ane:AGGR2": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 15000000000,
"persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC2"
},
".ane:NET3": {
"max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000
}
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
}
}
9. Compatibility with Other ALTO Extensions
9.1. Compatibility with Legacy ALTO Clients/Servers
The multipart Filtered Cost Map resource and the multipart Endpoint
Cost Service resource has no backward compatibility issue with legacy
ALTO clients and servers. Although these two types of resources
reuse the media types defined in the base ALTO protocol for the
accept input parameters, they have different media types for
responses. If the ALTO server provides these two types of resources,
but the ALTO client does not support them, the ALTO client will
ignore the resources without incurring any incompatibility problem.
9.2. Compatibility with Multi-Cost Extension
The extension defined in this document is compatible with the multi-
cost extension [RFC8189]. Such a resource has a media type of either
"multipart/related; type=application/alto-costmap+json" or
"multipart/related; type=application/alto-endpointcost+json". Its
"cost-constraints" field must either be "false" or not present and
the Path Vector cost type must be present in the "cost-type-names"
capability field but must not be present in the "testable-cost-type-
names" field, as specified in Section 7.2.4 and Section 7.3.4.
9.3. Compatibility with Incremental Update
ALTO clients and servers MUST follow the specifications given in
Section 5.2 of [RFC8895] to support incremental updates for a Path
Vector resource.
9.4. Compatibility with Cost Calendar
The extension specified in this document is compatible with the Cost
Calendar extension [RFC8896]. When used together with the Cost
Calendar extension, the cost value between a source and a destination
is an array of Path Vectors, where the k-th Path Vector refers to the
abstract network paths traversed in the k-th time interval by traffic
from the source to the destination.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
When used with time-varying properties, e.g., maximum reservable
bandwidth (maxresbw), a property of a single ANE may also have
different values in different time intervals. In this case, if such
an ANE has different property values in two time intervals, it MUST
be treated as two different ANEs, i.e., with different entity
identifiers. However, if it has the same property values in two time
intervals, it MAY use the same identifier.
This rule allows the Path Vector extension to represent both changes
of ANEs and changes of the ANEs' properties in a uniform way. The
Path Vector part is calendared in a compatible way, and the Property
Map part is not affected by the calendar extension.
The two extensions combined together can provide the historical
network correlation information for a set of source and destination
pairs. A network broker or client may use this information to derive
other resource requirements such as Time-Block-Maximum Bandwidth,
Bandwidth-Sliding-Window, and Time-Bandwidth-Product (TBP) (See
[SENSE] for details).
10. General Discussions
10.1. Constraint Tests for General Cost Types
The constraint test is a simple approach to query the data. It
allows users to filter the query result by specifying some boolean
tests. This approach is already used in the ALTO protocol.
[RFC7285] and [RFC8189] allow ALTO clients to specify the
"constraints" and "or-constraints" tests to better filter the result.
However, the current syntax can only be used to test scalar cost
types, and cannot easily express constraints on complex cost types,
e.g., the Path Vector cost type defined in this document.
In practice, developing a bespoke language for general-purpose
boolean tests can be a complex undertaking, and it is conceivable
that there are some existing implementations already (the authors
have not done an exhaustive search to determine whether there are
such implementations). One avenue to develop such a language may be
to explore extending current query languages like XQuery [XQuery] or
JSONiq [JSONiq] and integrating these with ALTO.
Filtering the Path Vector results or developing a more sophisticated
filtering mechanism is beyond the scope of this document.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
10.2. General Multi-Resource Query
Querying multiple ALTO information resources continuously is a
general requirement. Enabling such a capability, however, must
address general issues like efficiency and consistency. The
incremental update extension [RFC8895] supports submitting multiple
queries in a single request, and allows flexible control over the
queries. However, it does not cover the case introduced in this
document where multiple resources are needed for a single request.
This extension gives an example of using a multipart message to
encode the responses from two specific ALTO information resources: a
Filtered Cost Map or an Endpoint Cost Service, and a Property Map. By
packing multiple resources in a single response, the implication is
that servers may proactively push related information resources to
clients.
Thus, it is worth looking into the direction of extending the SSE
mechanism as used in the incremental update extension [RFC8895], or
upgrading to HTTP/2 [RFC7540] and HTTP/3 [I-D.ietf-quic-http], which
provides the ability to multiplex queries and to allow servers
proactively send related information resources.
Defining a general multi-resource query mechanism is out of the scope
of this document.
11. Security Considerations
This document is an extension of the base ALTO protocol, so the
Security Considerations [RFC7285] of the base ALTO protocol fully
apply when this extension is provided by an ALTO server.
The Path Vector extension requires additional scrutiny on three
security considerations discussed in the base protocol:
confidentiality of ALTO information (Section 15.3 of [RFC7285]),
potential undesirable guidance from authenticated ALTO information
(Section 15.2 of [RFC7285]), and availability of ALTO service
(Section 15.5 of [RFC7285]).
For confidentiality of ALTO information, a network operator should be
aware of that this extension may introduce a new risk: the Path
Vector information may make network attacks easier. For example, as
the Path Vector information may reveal more fine-grained internal
network structures than the base protocol, an ALTO client may detect
the bottleneck link and start a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS)
attack involving minimal flows to conduct the in-network congestion.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
To mitigate this risk, the ALTO server should consider protection
mechanisms to reduce information exposure or obfuscate the real
information, in particular, in settings where the network and the
application do not belong to the same trust domain. For example, in
the multi-flow bandwidth reservation use case as introduced in
Section 4, only the available bandwidth of the shared bottleneck link
is crucial, and the ALTO server may only preserve the critical
bottlenecks and can change the order of links appearing in the Path
Vector response.
However, arbitrary reduction and obfuscation of information exposure
may potentially introduce a risk on the integrity of the ALTO
information, leading to infeasible or suboptimal decisions of ALTO
clients,
To mitigate this risk, if an ALTO client finds that the traffic
distribution based on the Path Vector information is not feasible
(e.g., causing constant congestion) or not better than a distribution
which does not fully conform to the information (e.g., by randomly
choosing the source/destination for certain flows), it can follow the
protection strategies for potential undesirable guidance from
authenticated ALTO information, specified in Section 15.2.2 of RFC
7285 [RFC7285]. While repeatedly sending the same query can
potentially detect the integrity problem for certain obfuscation
methods (e.g., those based on time or randomness) under certain
network conditions (e.g., where the routing and ANE properties are
stable), an ALTO client must be aware that this behavior may be
considered as a denial-of-service attack on the server and may lead
to the rejection of further requests from the client.
On the other hand, this risk can also be mitigated from the server
side. While the implementation of an ALTO server is beyond the scope
of this document, implementations of ALTO servers involving reduction
or obfuscation of the Path Vector information should consider
reduction/obfuscation mechanisms that can preserve the integrity of
ALTO information, for example, by using minimal feasible region
compression algorithms [NOVA] or obfuscation protocols
[RESA][MERCATOR].
For availability of ALTO service, an ALTO server should be cognizant
that using Path Vector extension might have a new risk: frequent
requesting for Path Vectors might consume intolerable amounts of the
server-side computation and storage, which can break the ALTO server.
For example, if an ALTO server implementation dynamically computes
the Path Vectors for each request, the service providing Path Vectors
may become an entry point for denial-of-service attacks on the
availability of an ALTO server.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
To mitigate this risk, an ALTO server may consider using
optimizations such as precomputation-and-projection mechanisms
[MERCATOR] to reduce the overhead for processing each query. Also,
an ALTO server may also protect itself from malicious clients by
monitoring the behaviors of clients and stopping serving clients with
suspicious behaviors (e.g., sending requests at a high frequency).
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. ALTO Entity Domain Type Registry
This document registers a new entry to the ALTO Domain Entity Type
Registry, as instructed by Section 12.2 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The new entry is as shown below
in Table 1.
+============+=========================+=========================+
| Identifier | Entity Address Encoding | Hierarchy & Inheritance |
+============+=========================+=========================+
| ane | See Section 6.2.2 | None |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: ALTO Entity Domain Type Registry
Identifier: See Section 6.2.1.
Entity Identifier Encoding: See Section 6.2.2.
Hierarchy: None
Inheritance: None
Media Type of Defining Resource: See Section 6.2.4.
Security Considerations: In some usage scenarios, ANE addresses
carried in ALTO Protocol messages may reveal information about an
ALTO client or an ALTO service provider. Applications and ALTO
service providers using addresses of ANEs will be made aware of
how (or if) the addressing scheme relates to private information
and network proximity, in further iterations of this document.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
12.2. ALTO Entity Property Type Registry
Two initial entries "max-reservable-bandwidth" and "persistent-
entity-id" are registered to the ALTO Domain "ane" in the "ALTO
Entity Property Type Registry", as instructed by Section 12.3 of
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The two new entries are shown
below in Table 2 and their details can be found in Section 12.2.1 and
Section 12.2.2.
+==========================+====================+===================+
| Identifier | Intended | Media Type of |
| | Semantics | Defining Resource |
+==========================+====================+===================+
| max-reservable-bandwidth | See Section | application/alto- |
| | 6.4.1 | propmap+json |
+--------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| persistent-entity-id | See Section | application/alto- |
| | 6.4.2 | propmap+json |
+--------------------------+--------------------+-------------------+
Table 2: Initial Entries for ane Domain in the ALTO Entity
Property Types Registry
12.2.1. New ANE Property Type: Maximum Reservable Bandwidth
Identifier: "max-reservable-bandwidth"
Intended Semantics: See Section 6.4.1.
Media Type of Defining Resource: application/alto-propmap+json
Security Considerations: This property is essential for applications
such as large-scale data transfers or overlay network
interconnection to make better choice of bandwidth reservation.
It may reveal the bandwidth usage of the underlying network and
can potentially be leveraged to reduce the cost of conducting
denial-of-service attacks. Thus, the ALTO server MUST consider
protection mechanisms including only providing the information to
authorized clients, and information reduction and obfuscation as
introduced in Section 11.
12.2.2. New ANE Property Type: Persistent Entity ID
Identifier: "persistent-entity-id"
Intended Semantics: See Section 6.4.2.
Media Type of Defining Resource: application/alto-propmap+json
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Security Considerations: This property is useful when an ALTO server
wants to selectively expose certain service points whose detailed
properties can be further queried by applications. The entity IDs
may consider sensitive information about the underlying network,
and an ALTO server should follow the security considerations in
Section 11 of [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new].
13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank discussions with Andreas Voellmy,
Erran Li, Haibin Song, Haizhou Du, Jiayuan Hu, Qiao Xiang, Tianyuan
Liu, Xiao Shi, Xin Wang, and Yan Luo. The authors thank Greg
Bernstein, Dawn Chen, Wendy Roome, and Michael Scharf for their
contributions to earlier drafts.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]
Roome, W., Randriamasy, S., Yang, Y. R., Zhang, J. J., and
K. Gao, "ALTO Extension: Entity Property Maps", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-
new-19, 25 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-
unified-props-new-19>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC2387] Levinson, E., "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type",
RFC 2387, DOI 10.17487/RFC2387, August 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2387>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322>.
[RFC7285] Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
"Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7285>.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8189] Randriamasy, S., Roome, W., and N. Schwan, "Multi-Cost
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)", RFC 8189,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8189, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8189>.
[RFC8895] Roome, W. and Y. Yang, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Incremental Updates Using Server-Sent
Events (SSE)", RFC 8895, DOI 10.17487/RFC8895, November
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8895>.
[RFC8896] Randriamasy, S., Yang, R., Wu, Q., Deng, L., and N.
Schwan, "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
Cost Calendar", RFC 8896, DOI 10.17487/RFC8896, November
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8896>.
14.2. Informative References
[BOXOPT] Xiang, Q., Yu, H., Aspnes, J., Le, F., Kong, L., and Y.R.
Yang, "Optimizing in the dark: Learning an optimal
solution through a simple request interface", Proceedings
of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 33,
1674-1681 , 2019.
[CLARINET] Viswanathan, R., Ananthanarayanan, G., and A. Akella,
"CLARINET: WAN-Aware Optimization for Analytics Queries",
In 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and
Implementation (OSDI 16), USENIX Association, Savannah,
GA, 435-450 , 2016.
[G2] Ros-Giralt, J., Bohara, A., Yellamraju, S., Langston,
M.H., Lethin, R., Jiang, Y., Tassiulas, L., Li, J., Tan,
Y., and M. Veeraraghavan, "On the Bottleneck Structure of
Congestion-Controlled Networks", Proceedings of the ACM on
Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, Volume 3,
Issue 3, pp 1-31 , 2019.
[HUG] Chowdhury, M., Liu, Z., Ghodsi, A., and I. Stoica, "HUG:
Multi-Resource Fairness for Correlated and Elastic
Demands", 13th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems
Design and Implementation (NSDI 16) (Santa Clara, CA,
2016), 407-424. , 2016.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
[I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics]
Wu, Q., Yang, Y. R., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Randriamasy, S.,
and L. M. C. Murillo, "ALTO Performance Cost Metrics",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-alto-
performance-metrics-19, 23 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-
performance-metrics-19>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]
Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
quic-http-34, 2 February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
http-34>.
[JSONiq] "The JSON Query language", 2020,
<https://www.jsoniq.org/>.
[MERCATOR] Xiang, Q., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Liu, Y., Guok, C., Le, F.,
MacAuley, J., Newman, H., and Y.R. Yang, "Toward Fine-
Grained, Privacy-Preserving, Efficient Multi-Domain
Network Resource Discovery", IEEE/ACM IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas of Communication 37(8): 1924-1940, 2019.
[MOWIE] Zhang, Y., Li, G., Xiong, C., Lei, Y., Huang, W., Han, Y.,
Walid, A., Yang, Y.R., and Z. Zhang, "MoWIE: Toward
Systematic, Adaptive Network Information Exposure as an
Enabling Technique for Cloud-Based Applications over 5G
and Beyond", In Proceedings of the Workshop on Network
Application Integration/CoDesign, ACM, Virtual Event USA,
20-27. , 2020.
[NOVA] Gao, K., Xiang, Q., Wang, X., Yang, Y.R., and J. Bi, "An
objective-driven on-demand network abstraction for
adaptive applications", IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking (TON) Vol 27, no. 2 (2019): 805-818., 2019.
[RESA] Xiang, Q., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Liu, Y., Guok, C., Le, F.,
MacAuley, J., Newman, H., and Y.R. Yang, "Fine-grained,
multi-domain network resource abstraction as a fundamental
primitive to enable high-performance, collaborative data
sciences", Proceedings of the Super Computing 2018,
5:1-5:13 , 2019.
[RFC2216] Shenker, S. and J. Wroclawski, "Network Element Service
Specification Template", RFC 2216, DOI 10.17487/RFC2216,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2216>.
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7540>.
[SENSE] "Services - SENSE", 2019, <http://sense.es.net/services>.
[SEREDGE] Contreras, L., Baliosian, J., Martı́nez-Julia, P., and J.
Serrat, "Computing at the Edge: But, what Edge?", In
proceedings of the NOMS 2020 - 2020 IEEE/IFIP Network
Operations and Management Symposium. pp. 1-9. , 2020.
[SWAN] Hong, C., Kandula, S., Mahajan, R., Zhang, M., Gill, V.,
Nanduri, M., and R. Wattenhofer, "Achieving High
Utilization with Software-driven WAN", In Proceedings of
the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 Conference on SIGCOMM (SIGCOMM '13),
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15-26. , 2013.
[UNICORN] Xiang, Q., Chen, S., Gao, K., Newman, H., Taylor, I.,
Zhang, J., and Y.R. Yang, "Unicorn: Unified Resource
Orchestration for Multi-Domain, Geo-Distributed Data
Analytics", 2017 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence
Computing, Advanced Trusted Computed, Scalable Computing
Communications, Cloud Big Data Computing, Internet of
People and Smart City Innovation
(SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI) (Aug. 2017),
1-6. , 2017.
[XQuery] "XQuery 3.1: An XML Query Language", 2017,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31/>.
Appendix A. Revision Logs
A.1. Changes since -17
Revision -18
* changes the specification for content-id to conform to [RFC2387]
and [RFC5322]
* adds IPv6 examples
A.2. Changes since -16
Revision -17
* adds items for media type of defining resources in IANA
considerations
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
A.3. Changes since -15
Revision -16
* resolves the compatibility with the Multi-Cost extension (RFC
8189)
* adds media types of defining resources for ANE property types (for
IANA registration)
A.4. Changes since -14
Revision -15
* fixes the IDNits warnings,
* fixes grammar issues,
* addresses the comments in the AD review.
A.5. Changes since -13
Revision -14
* addresses the comments in the chair review,
* fixes most issues raised by IDNits.
A.6. Changes since -12
Revision -13
* changes the abstract based on the chairs' reviews
* integrates Richard's responds to WGLC reviews
A.7. Changes since -11
Revision -12
* clarifies the definition of ANEs in a similar way as how Network
Elements is defined in [RFC2216]
* restructures several paragraphs that are not clear (Sec 3, Path
Vector bullet, Sec 4.2, Sec 5.1.3, Sec 6.2.4, Sec 6.4.2, Sec 9.3)
* uses "ALTO Entity Domain Type Registry"
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
A.8. Changes since -10
Revision -11
* replaces "part" with "components" in the abstract;
* identifies additional requirements (AR) derived from the flow
scheduling example, and introduces how the extension addresses the
additional requirements
* fixes the inconsistent use of "start" parameter in multipart
responses;
* specifies explicitly how to handle "cost-constraints";
* uses the latest IANA registration mechanism defined in
[I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new];
* renames "persistent-entities" to "persistent-entity-id";
* makes "application/alto-propmap+json" as the media type of
defining resources for the "ane" domain;
* updates the examples;
* adds the discussion on ephemeral and persistent ANEs.
A.9. Changes since -09
Revision -10
* revises the introduction which
- extends the scope where the PV extension can be applied beyond
the "path correlation" information
* brings back the capacity region use case to better illustrate the
problem
* revises the overview to explain and defend the concepts and
decision choices
* fixes inconsistent terms, typos
A.10. Changes since -08
This revision
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
* fixes a few spelling errors
* emphasizes that abstract network elements can be generated on
demand in both introduction and motivating use cases
A.11. Changes Since Version -06
* We emphasize the importance of the path vector extension in two
aspects:
1. It expands the problem space that can be solved by ALTO, from
preferences of network paths to correlations of network paths.
2. It is motivated by new usage scenarios from both application's
and network's perspectives.
* More use cases are included, in addition to the original capacity
region use case.
* We add more discussions to fully explore the design space of the
path vector extension and justify our design decisions, including
the concept of abstract network element, cost type (reverted to
-05), newer capabilities and the multipart message.
* Fix the incremental update process to be compatible with SSE -16
draft, which uses client-id instead of resource-id to demultiplex
updates.
* Register an additional ANE property (i.e., persistent-entities) to
cover all use cases mentioned in the draft.
Authors' Addresses
Kai Gao
Sichuan University
No.24 South Section 1, Yihuan Road
Chengdu
610000
China
Email: kaigao@scu.edu.cn
Young Lee
Samsung
South Korea
Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft ALTO-PV October 2021
Sabine Randriamasy
Nokia Bell Labs
Route de Villejust
91460 Nozay
France
Email: sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com
Yang Richard Yang
Yale University
51 Prospect Street
New Haven, CT
United States of America
Email: yry@cs.yale.edu
Jingxuan Jensen Zhang
Tongji University
4800 Caoan Road
Shanghai
201804
China
Email: jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com
Gao, et al. Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 63]