ALTO Protocol
draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (alto WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2012-03-29
(latest revision 2012-03-11)
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-penno-alto-protocol
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
WG Document
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
None
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
AD is watching
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Martin Stiemerling
|
|
Send notices to |
|
alto-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-protocol@tools.ietf.org
|
ALTO WG R. Alimi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno, Ed.
Expires: September 12, 2012 Juniper Networks
Y. Yang, Ed.
Yale University
March 11, 2012
ALTO Protocol
draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11.txt
Abstract
Networking applications today already have access to a great amount
of Inter-Provider network topology information. For example, views
of the Internet routing table are easily available at looking glass
servers and entirely practical to be downloaded by clients. What is
missing is knowledge of the underlying network topology from the ISP
or Content Provider (henceforth referred as Provider) point of view.
In other words, what a Provider prefers in terms of traffic
optimization -- and a way to distribute it.
The ALTO Service provides network information (e.g., basic network
location structure, preferences of network paths) with the goal of
modifying network resource consumption patterns while maintaining or
improving application performance. The basic information of ALTO is
based on abstract maps of a network. These maps provide simplified,
yet enough information of a network for applications to effectively
utilize. Additional services are built on top the maps.
This document describes a protocol implementing the ALTO Service.
Although the ALTO service would primarily be provided by the network
(i.e., the ISP), content providers and third parties could also
operate this service. Applications that could use this service are
those that have a choice in connection endpoints. Examples of such
applications are peer-to-peer (P2P) and content delivery networks.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Alimi, et al. Expires September 12, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol March 2012
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Alimi, et al. Expires September 12, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol March 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1. Background and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Design History and Merged Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Solution Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.1. Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1. Endpoint Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Show full document text