Network Working Group S. Randriamasy, Ed.
Internet-Draft W. Roome, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: April 21, 2016 N. Schwan
Thales Deutschland
October 19, 2015
Multi-Cost ALTO
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-01
Abstract
The ALTO (Application Layer-Traffic Optimization) Protocol
([RFC7285]) defines several services that return various metrics
describing the costs between network endpoints. For example, when
downloading a file that is mirrored on several sites, a user
application may use these ALTO cost metrics to determine the most
efficient mirror site.
An ALTO Server may offer a variety of cost metrics, based on latency,
bandwidth, hop count, jitter, or whatever else the ALTO Server deems
useful. When selecting a mirror site, a client may consider more
than one metric, perhaps trading bandwidth for latency. While the
base ALTO Protocol allows a client to use more than one cost metric,
to do so, the client must request each metric separately. This
document defines a new service that allows a client to retrieve
several cost metrics with one request, which is considerably more
efficient. In addition, this document extends the ALTO constraint
tests to allow a user to specify an arbitrary logical combination of
tests on several cost metrics.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview Of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions . . . . 9
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Information Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1 . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2 . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3 . . . . . . . . 18
5.5. Endpoint Cost Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Privacy And Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
IETF has designed a new service called ALTO that provides guidance to
overlay applications, which have to select one or several hosts from
a set of candidates that are able to provide a desired resource.
This guidance is based on parameters such the topological distance,
that affect performance and efficiency of the data transmission
between the hosts. The purpose of ALTO is to improve Quality of
Experience (QoE) in the application while reducing resource
consumption in the underlying network infrastructure. The ALTO
protocol conveys the Internet View from the perspective of a Provider
Network region that spans from a region to one or more Autonomous
System (AS) and is called a Network Map. ALTO may also provide the
Provider determined Cost Map between locations of the Network Map or
Endpoint Cost Map between groups of individual endpoints. Last,
these costs are provided as numerical or ordinal values.
Current ALTO Costs and their modes provide values that are seen to be
stable over a longer period of time, such as hopcount and
administrative routing cost to reflect ISP routing preferences.
Recently, new use cases have extended the usage scope of ALTO to
Content Delivery Networks, Data Centers and applications that need
additional information to select their Endpoints or handle their
PIDs.
Thus a multitude of new Cost Types that better reflect the
requirements of these applications are expected to be specified, in
particular cost values that change more frequently than previously
assumed.
The ALTO protocol [RFC7285] restricts ALTO Cost Maps and Endpoint
Cost services to only one Cost Type and Cost Mode per ALTO request.
To retrieve information for several Cost Types, an ALTO client must
send several separate requests to the server.
It would be far more efficient, in terms of RTT, traffic, and
processing load on the ALTO client and server, to get all costs with
a single query/response transaction. Vector costs provide a robust
and natural input to multi-variate path computation as well as robust
multi-variate selection of multiple Endpoints. In particular, one
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
Cost Map reporting on N Cost Types is less bulky than N Cost Maps
containing one Cost Type each. This is valuable for both the storage
of these maps and their transmission. Additionally, for many
emerging applications that need information on several Cost Types,
having them gathered in one map will save time. Another potential
advantage is consistency: provide values on several Cost Types in one
single batch is useful for Clients needing synchronized ALTO
information updates.
Along with multi-cost values queries, the filtering capabilities need
to be extended to allow constraints on multiple metrics. The base
protocol allows a client to provide optional constraint tests for a
Filtered Cost Map or the Endpoint Cost Service. In the base
protocol, the constraint tests are limited to the AND-combination of
simple comparison tests on the value of the (single) requested Cost
Type. It is therefore necessary to allow constraints on multiple
metrics. Beyond that, applications that are sensitive to several
metrics and struggle with complicated network conditions may need to
arbitrate between conflicting objectives such as routing cost and
network performance. To address this issue, this document proposes
to extend the base protocol by extending constraints to test multiple
metrics, and by allowing these constraints to be combined with
logical 'ORs' as well as logical 'ANDs'. This allows an application
to make requests such as: "select solutions with either (moderate
"hopcount" AND high "routingcost") OR (higher "hopcount" AND moderate
"routingcost")". To ensure compatibility with legacy ALTO Clients,
Multi-Cost extensions are specified for the Filtered Cost Map service
and the Endpoint Cost Map service only, while enabling to provide
full Cost maps as well.
This document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines terminology
used in this document. Section 3 gives a non-normative overview of
the multi-cost extensions, and Section 4 gives their formal
definition. Section 5 gives several complete examples. The
remaining sections describe the IANA and privacy considerations.
2. Terminology
This document uses terms defined as follows:
o {1.2.3}: References of this form are to sections in the ALTO
protocol specification [RFC7285].
o When refering to a section of this document, the format 1.2.3,
without brackets, will be used.
o Endpoint (EP): can be a Peer, a CDN storage location, a physical
server involved in a virtual server-supported application, a Party
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
in a resource sharing swarm such as a computation Grid or an
online multi-party game.
o Endpoint Discovery (EP Discovery) : this term covers the different
types of processes used to discover the eligible endpoints.
o Network Service Provider (NSP): includes both ISPs, who provide
means to transport the data, and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs)
who care for the dissemination, persistent storage and possibly
identification of the best/closest content copy.
o ALTO transaction: a request/response exchange between an ALTO
Client and an ALTO Server.
o Application Client (AC): this term generalizes the case of a P2P
client to include the case of a CDN client, a client of an
application running on a virtual server, a Grid application client
and any Client having the choice in several connection points for
data or resource exchange.
3. Overview Of Approach
The following is a non-normative overview of the multi-cost
extensions defined in this document. It assumes the reader is
familiar with Cost Map resources in the ALTO Protocol ([RFC7285]).
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format
Formally, the cost entries in an ALTO Cost Map can be any type of
JSON value (see the DstCosts object in {11.2.3.6}). However, that
section also says that an implementation may assume costs are JSON
numbers, unless the implementation is using an extension which
signals a different data type.
Therefore this document extends the definition of a Cost Map to allow
a cost to be an array of costs, one per metric, instead of just one
number. For example, here is a Cost Map with the "routingcost" and
"hopcount" metrics. Note that this is identical to a regular ALTO
Cost Map, except that the values are arrays instead of numbers.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [ ... ],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1":[1,0], "PID2":[5,23], "PID3":[10,5] },
...
}
}
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy Clients
The multi-cost extensions defined in this document should not break
legacy implementations (that is, clients and servers which are not
aware of these extensions). One way to achieve that would be to
define a new media type for an array-valued Multi Cost Map. However,
as indicated above, an array-valued Multi Cost Map is almost
identical to a single-valued Cost Map, so it should be simple to
write a parser which handles either type of cost map. Hence defining
a new media type could result in a lot of wasteful duplication.
Therefore this document does not define any new media types.
Instead, as described below, it extends the specifications in the
ALTO Server's Information Resource Directory (IRD) so that legacy
clients will not request array-valued Cost Map resources. This
relies on the requirement that implementations MUST ignore unknown
fields ({8.3.7} in [RFC7285]).
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources
This document extends the Filtered Cost Map service to allow the same
resource to return either a single-valued Cost Map, as defined in
[RFC7285], or an array-valued Multi Cost Map, as defined in this
document. An extended Filtered Cost Map resource has a new
capability, "max-cost-types". The value is the maximum number of
cost types this resource can return for one request. The existence
of this capability means the resource understands the extensions in
this document.
For example, the following fragment from an IRD defines an extended
Filtered Cost Map resource:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ],
...
}
A legacy client will ignore the "max-cost-types" capability, and will
send a request with the input parameter "cost-type" describing the
desired cost metric, as defined in [RFC7285]. The ALTO Server will
return a single-valued legacy Cost Map.
However, a multi-cost-aware client will realize that this resource
supports the multi-cost extensions, and can send a POST request with
the new input parameter "multi-cost-types", whose value is an array
of cost types. Because the request has the "multi-cost-types"
parameter (rather than the "cost-type" parameter defined in the base
protocol), the server realizes that the client also supports the
extensions in this document, and hence responds with a Multi Cost
Map, with the costs in the order listed in "multi-cost-types".
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources
This document uses the technique described in Section 3.3 to extend
the Endpoint Cost Service to return array-valued costs to clients who
also are aware of these extensions.
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources
Full Cost Map resources are GET-mode requests, with no capabilities
other than the name of the cost type they return. It is therefore
not possible to define an array-valued Full Cost Map resource so that
multi-cost-aware clients can recognize it and legacy clients will
ignore it. Indeed, the response for a Full Cost Map conveying
multiple cost types would include a "meta" field that would itself
include a "cost-type" field, that would list several values
corresponding to the cost types of the cost map. A legacy client
would not be able to understand this list. It would not know what
the cost type of the map is and neither would it be able to interpret
the cost values array provided by a Multi-Cost full maps.
However {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285] requires a Filtered Cost Map to
return the entire Cost Map if the client omits the source and
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
destination PIDs. Hence a client can use an extended Filtered Cost
Map resource to get a full Multi Cost Map.
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests
[RFC7285] defines a simple constraint test capability for Filtered
Cost Maps and Endpoint Cost Services. If a resource supports
constraints, the server restricts the response to costs that satisfy
a list of simple predicates provided by the client. For example, if
the client gives the constraints
"constraints": ["ge 10", "le 20"]
Then the server only returns costs in the range [10,20].
To be useful with multi-cost requests, the constraint tests require
several extensions. First, because a multi-cost request involves
more than one cost metric, the simple predicates must be extended to
specify the metric to test. Therefore we extend the predicate syntax
to "[##] op value", where "##" is the index of a cost metric in this
multi cost request.
Second, if the client for example wants values either greater than 10
or smaller than 20, the "AND" of simple predicates is not sufficient;
to be useful, clients must be able to express "OR" tests. Hence we
add a new field, "or-constraints", to the client request. The value
is an array of arrays of simple predicates, and represents the OR of
ANDs of those predicates.
Thus the following request tells the server to limit its response to
cost points with "routingcost" <= 100 AND "hopcount" <= 2, OR else
"routingcost" <= 10 AND "hopcount" <= 6:
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "routingcost", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
{"cost-metric": "hopcount", "cost-mode": "numerical"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 100", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids": {...}
}
Finally, a client might want to test a cost type whose actual value
is irrelevant, as long as it satisfies the tests. For example, the
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
following request tells the server to return just "routingcost" for
those source and destination pairs for which "hopcount" is <= 6:
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "routingcost", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
],
"testable-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "hopcount", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
],
"constraints": ["[0] le 6"],
"pids": {...}
}
In this example, "[0]" means the constraint applies to "hopcount"
because that is the first cost type in the "testable-cost-types"
parameter.
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions
This section provides the formal specifications of extensions to
RFC7285 to support Multi-Cost ALTO transactions.
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions
This document extends Filtered Cost Maps, as defined in {11.3.2} of
[RFC7285], by adding new input parameters and capabilities, and by
returning JSONArrays instead of JSONNumbers as the cost values.
The media type (11.3.2.1}, HTTP method (11.3.2.2} and "uses"
specifications (11.3.2.5} are unchanged.
4.1.1. Accept Input Parameters
The ReqFilteredCostMap object in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285] is extended
as follows:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
object {
[CostType cost-type;]
[CostType multi-cost-types<1..*>;]
[CostType testable-cost-types<1..*>;]
[JSONString constraints<0..*>;]
[JSONString or-constraints<0..*>;]
PIDFilter pids;
} ReqFilteredCostMap;
object {
PIDName srcs<0..*>;
PIDName dsts<0..*>;
} PIDFilter;
cost-type: If present, as defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285], with
the additional requirement that the client MUST provide either
"cost-type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT provide both.
multi-cost-types: If present, the ALTO Server MUST return array-
valued costs for the cost types in thlis list. For each entry,
the "cost-metric" and "cost-mode" fields MUST match one of the
supported cost types indicated in this resource's "capabilities"
field (Section 4.1.2). The client MUST NOT use this field unless
this resource's "max-cost-types" capability exists and has a value
greater than 0. The client MUST specify either "cost-type" or
"multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both.
testable-cost-types: A list of cost types for extended constraint
tests, as described for the "constraints" parameter. If present,
the cost types must be a subset of the cost types in the
resource's "testable-cost-type-names" capability (Section 4.1.2).
This feature allows a client to test a cost type whose actual
value is irrelevant, as long as it satisfies the tests. For
example, a client may want a Filtered Cost Map for cost metric
"routingcost" that is restricted to those PID pairs that satisfy
constraints on metric "hopcount". This feature is also useful for
a server that does not allow constraints on all the cost types
indicated in this resource's capabilities.
constraints: Unless this resource's "max-cost-types" capability
(Section 4.1.2) is defined with a value greater than 0, this
parameter is an array of constraint tests where each test is
formulated as defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285].
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
This parameter MUST NOT be specified if the "or-constraints"
parameter is specified, or if the resource's "cost-constraints"
capability is false.
If this resource's "max-cost-types" capability is greater than 0,
then this parameter MUST be an array of extended constraint tests,
where each test consists of two or three entities separated by
white space: (1) an optional cost type index, of the form "[#]",
with default value "[0]", (2) a required operator, and (3) a
required target value. The operator and target value are as
defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285]. The cost type index specifies
the cost type to test. If the "testable-cost-types" parameter is
present, assuming the index is "i", the test applies to the i'th
cost type in "testable-cost-types" (starting with index 0).
Otherwise, if the "multi-cost-types" parameter is present, the
test applies to the i'th cost type in "multi-cost-types". If
neither of those parameters is present, the test applies to the
cost type in the "cost-type" parameter. In this case, the index
MUST be 0. Regardless of how the tested cost type is selected, it
MUST be a cost type in the resource's "testable-cost-type-names"
capability, or, if omitted, the resource's "cost-type-names"
capability.
As an example: suppose "multi-cost-types" has the single element
"routingcost", "testable-cost-types" has the single element
"hopcount", and "constraints" has the single element "[0] le 5".
This is equivalent to the database query "SELECT routingcost WHERE
hopcount <= 5".
Note that as long as this resource's "max-cost-types" capability
is greater than 0, a client may use the extended constraint tests
even on single-valued cost map requests, that is, requests with
the "cost-type" parameter rather than "multi-cost-types".
or-constraints: A JSONArray of JSONArrays of JSONStrings, where each
string is a constraint test as defined for the "constraints"
parameter. The constraint tests are interpreted as the logical OR
of ANDs. That is, the ALTO Server should return a cost point only
if it satisfies all constraints in any one of the sub-arrays.
This parameter MUST NOT be specified unless this resource's "cost-
constraints" capability is "true" and its "max-cost-types"
capability is defined with a value greater than 0 (Section 4.1.2).
This parameter MUST NOT be specified if the "constraints"
parameter is specified.
Note that if the "max-cost-types" capability has a value greater
than 0, a client MAY use the "or-constraints" parameter together
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
with the "cost-type" parameter. That is, if the client and server
are both aware of the extensions in this document, a client MAY
use an "OR" test for a single-valued cost request.
pids, srcs, dsts: As defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285].
4.1.2. Capabilities
The FilteredCostMapCapabilities object in {11.3.2.4} is extended as
follows:
object {
JSONString cost-type-names<1..*>;
[JSONBool cost-constraints;]
[JSONNumber max-cost-types;]
[JSONString testable-cost-type-names<0..*>;]
} FilteredCostMapCapabilities;
max-cost-types: If present with value N greater than 0, this
resource understands the multi-cost extensions in this document,
and can return a Multi Cost Map with any combination of N or fewer
cost types in the "cost-type-names" list. If omitted, the default
value is 0.
testable-cost-type-names: If present, and if "cost-constraints" is
true, the resource only allows constraint tests on the cost type
names in this array. Each name in "testable-cost-type-names" MUST
be in "cost-type-names". If omitted or empty, the default is the
value of the "cost-type-names" capability.
cost-type-names and cost-constraints: As defined in {11.3.2.4} of
[RFC7285].
Note that "testable-cost-type-names" allows an ALTO Server to provide
constraint tests on some, but not all, cost types.
4.1.3. Response
If the client specifies the "cost-type" input parameter, the response
is exactly as defined in {11.2.3.6} of [RFC7285]. If the client
provides the "multi-cost-types" instead, then the response is changed
as follows:
o In "meta", the field "cost-type" is replaced with the field
"multi-cost-types", with the same value as the "multi-cost-types"
input parameter.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
o The costs are JSONArrays, instead of JSONNumbers. All arrays have
the same cardinality as the "multi-cost-types" input parameter,
and contain the cost type values in that order. If a cost type is
not available for a particular source and destination, the ALTO
Server MUST use the JSON null value for that array element. If
none of the cost types are available for a particular source and
destination, the ALTO Server MAY omit the entry for that source
and destination.
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions
This document extends the Endpoint Cost Service, as defined in
{11.5.1} of [RFC7285], by adding new input parameters and
capabilities, and by returning JSONArrays instead of JSONNumbers as
the cost values.
The media type (11.5.1.1}, HTTP method (11.5.1.2} and "uses"
specifications (11.5.1.5} are unchanged.
4.2.1. Accept Input Parameters
The ReqEndpointCostMap object in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285] is extended
as follows:
object {
[CostType cost-type;]
[CostType multi-cost-types<1..*>;]
[CostType testable-cost-types<1..*>;]
[JSONString constraints<0..*>;]
[JSONString or-constraints<0..*>;]
EndpointFilter endpoints;
} ReqFilteredCostMap;
object {
[TypedEndpointAddr srcs<0..*>;]
[TypedEndpointAddr dsts<0..*>;]
} EndpointFilter;
cost-type: As defined in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285], with the
additional requirement that the client MUST specify either "cost-
type" or "multi-cost-types", but not both.
multi-cost-types: If present, the ALTO Server MUST return array-
valued costs for the cost types in this list. For each entry, the
"cost-metric" and "cost-mode" fields MUST match one of the
supported cost types indicated in this resource's "capabilities"
field (Section 4.2.2). The client MUST NOT use this field unless
this resource's "max-cost-types" capability exists and has a value
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
greater than 0. Although optional, the client MUST specify either
"cost-type" or "multi-cost-types". The client MUST NOT specify
both.
testable-cost-types, constraints, or-constraints: Defined
equivalently to the corresponding input parameters for an extended
Filtered Cost Map (Section 4.1.1).
endpoints, srcs, dsts: As defined in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285].
4.2.2. Capabilities
The extensions to the Endpoint Cost Service capabilities are
identical to the extensions to the Filtered Cost Map (see
Section 4.1.2).
4.2.3. Response
The extensions to the Endpoint Cost Service response are similar to
the extensions to the Filtered Cost Map response (Section 4.1.3).
Specifically, if the client specifies the "cost-type" input
parameter, the response is exactly as defined in {11.5.1.6} of
[RFC7285]. If the client provides the "multi-cost-types" instead,
then the response is changed as follows:
o In "meta", the field "cost-type" is replaced with the field
"multi-cost-types", with the same value as the "multi-cost-types"
input parameter.
o The costs are JSONArrays, instead of JSONNumbers. All arrays have
the same cardinality as the "multi-cost-types" input parameter,
and contain the cost type values in that order. If a cost type is
not available for a particular source and destination, the ALTO
Server MUST use the JSON null value for that array element. If
none of the cost types are available for a particular source and
destination, the ALTO Server MAY omit the entry for that source
and destination.
5. Examples
5.1. Information Resource Directory
The following is an example of an ALTO Server's Information Resource
Directory. In addition to Network and Cost Map resources, it defines
a Filtered Cost Map and an Endpoint Cost Service, both which
understand the multi-cost extensions.
GET /directory HTTP/1.1
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-directory+json,application/alto-error+json
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: [TODO]
Content-Type: application/alto-directory+json
{
"meta" : {
"default-alto-network-map" : "my-default-network-map",
"cost-types" : {
"num-routing" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "routingcost"
},
"num-hopcount" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "hopcount"
},
.....
Other ALTO cost types as described
in current ALTO Protocol
.....
}
},
"resources" : {
"my-default-network-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap",
"media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json"
},
"numerical-routing-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num-routing",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ]
}
},
"numerical-hopcount-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num-hopcount",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-hopcount" ]
}
},
.........
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
And other information resources as described in RFC7285
.........
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ],
"testable-cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
},
"endpoint-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/endpointcost/lookup",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-endpointcost+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ],
"testable-cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
}
}
}
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1
This example illustrates a static multi-cost ALTO transaction, where
the utilized Cost Types all have static values. We assume that the
Cost Types available at the ALTO Server are "routingcost" and
"hopcount" and the "numerical" mode is available for both of them.
The "routingcost" may be based on monetary considerations where as
the "hopcount" is used to report on the path delay. We also assume
that ALTO server does not know the value of the "routingcost" between
PID2 and PID3, and hence uses 'null' for those costs.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
POST /multi/costmap/filtered" HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: [TODO]
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1":[1,0], "PID2":[4,23], "PID3":[10,5] },
"PID2": { "PID1":[15,5], "PID2":[1,0], "PID3":[null,9] },
"PID3": { "PID1":[20,12], "PID2":[null,1], "PID3":[1,0] }
}
}
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2
This is an example of using constraints to restrict the returned
source/destination PID pairs to those with "routingcost" between 5
and 10, or "hopcount" equal to 0.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
POST multi/multicostmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints" : [ ["[0] ge 5", "[0] le 10"],
["[1] eq 0"] ]
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ "PID1", "PID2" ],
"dsts" : [ "PID1", "PID2", "PID3" ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": [1,0], "PID3": [10,5] },
"PID2": { "PID2": [1,0] }
}
}
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3
This example uses extended constraints to limit the response to cost
points with ("routingcost" <= 10 and "hopcount" <= 2), or else
("routingcost" <= 2 and "hopcount" <= 6). Unlike the previous
example, the client is only interested in the "routingcost" cost
type, and uses the "cost-type" parameter instead of "multi-cost-
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
types" to tell the server to return scalar costs instead of array
costs:
POST multi/multicostmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
{
"cost-type" : {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"
},
"testable-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"cost-type" : {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"
}
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": 1, "PID3": 10 },
"PID2": { "PID2": 1 },
"PID3": { "PID3": 1 }
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
5.5. Endpoint Cost Service
This example uses the Endpoint Cost Service to retrieve the
"routingcost" and "hopcount" for selected endpoints, limiting the
response to costs with either low hopcount and reasonable routingcost
(hopcount <= 2 and routingcost <= 10), or else low routingcost and
reasonable hopcount (routingcost <= 3 and hopcount <= 6).
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
POST /multi/endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Content-Length: [TODO]
Content-Type: application/alto-endpoincostparams+json
Accept: application/alto-endpointcost+json,
application/alto-error+json
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"endpoints" : {
"srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
"dsts": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.89",
"ipv4:198.51.100.34",
"ipv4:203.0.113.45"
]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: [TODO]
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta" : {
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"endpoint-cost-map" : {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89": [15, 5],
"ipv4:203.0.113.45": [4, 23]
}
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
6. IANA Considerations
This document does define any new media types or introduce any new
IANA considerations.
7. Privacy And Security Considerations
This document does introduce any privacy or security issues not
already present in the ALTO protocol.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Richard Alimi, Vijay Gurbani, Dave
Mac Dysan, Dhruv Dhodi, Young Lee, Richard Yang and Wang Xin for
fruitful discussions and feedback on this document and previous
versions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5693] "Application Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem
Statement", October 2009.
[RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S.,
Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application-Layer
Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, September
2014.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6708] "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
Requirements", February 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Sabine Randriamasy (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent/Bell Labs
Route de Villejust
NOZAY 91460
FRANCE
Email: Sabine.Randriamasy@alcatel-lucent.com
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO October 2015
Wendy Roome (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent/Bell Labs
600 Mountain Ave, Rm 3B-324
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA
Phone: +1-908-582-7974
Email: w.roome@alcatel-lucent.com
Nico Schwan
Thales Deutschland
Lorenzstrasse 10
Stuttgart 70435
Germany
Email: nico.schwan@thalesgroup.com
Randriamasy, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 23]