ALTO WG R. Alimi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Yale University
Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno, Ed.
Expires: June 19, 2010 Juniper Networks
Y. Yang, Ed.
Yale University
December 16, 2009
ALTO Protocol
draft-ietf-alto-protocol-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
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 an Provider prefers in terms of traffic
optimization -- and a way to distribute it.
The ALTO Service provides information such as preferences of network
resources with the goal of modifying network resource consumption
patterns while maintaining or improving application performance.
This document describes a protocol implementing the ALTO Service.
While such 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 [1].
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Background and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Design History and Merged Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Solution Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.1. Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3.2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. Endpoint Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. Network Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. ALTO Service and Protocol Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Protocol Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Server Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Map Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Map Filtering Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Endpoint Property Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.4. Ranking Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Network Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. PID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Example Network Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Path Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Path Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.1. Cost Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.2. Cost Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Path Rating Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.1. Cost Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2. Ranking List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.3. Network Map and Cost Map Dependency . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. Use of Existing Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. ALTO Information Reuse and Redistribution . . . . . . 14
6.2. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.1. Query Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.2. Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.3. Query and Response Body Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Protocol Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Client Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.1. General Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.2. General Error Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.1. Successful Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.2. General Error Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2.3. Caching Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. ALTO Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
7.3.1. Server Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3.2. Map Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3.3. Map Filtering Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3.4. Endpoint Property Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.3.5. Ranking Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Tracker . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Client: Numerical Costs . . . 25
8.3. ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Client: Ranking . . . . . . . 26
9. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.1. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2. Network Address Translation Considerations . . . . . . . . 27
9.3. Mapping IPs to ASNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.4. Endpoint and Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.5. P2P Peer Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.5.1. Client-based Peer Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.5.2. Server-based Peer Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.2. ALTO Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.3. ALTO Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.4. ALTO Information Redistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.5. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix B. Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Problem Statement
Today, network information available to applications is mostly from
the view of endhosts. There is no clear mechanism to convey
information about the network's preferences to applications. By
leveraging better network-provided information, applications have
potential to become more network-efficient (e.g., reduce network
resource consumption) and achieve better application performance
(e.g., accelerated download rate). The ALTO Service intends to
provide a simple way to convey network information to applications.
The goal of the protocol specified in this document is to provide a
simple, unified protocol that meets the ALTO requirements [5],
providing a migration path for Internet Service Providers (ISP),
Content Providers, and clients that have deployed protocols with
similar intentions (see below). This document is a work in progress
and will be updated with further developments.
1.2. Design History and Merged Proposals
The protocol specified here consists of contributions from
o P4P [6],[7];
o ALTO Info-Export [8];
o Query/Response [9],[10];
o ATTP [ATTP].
o Proxidor [19].
See Appendix A for a list of people that have contributed
significantly to this effort and the projects and proposals listed
above.
1.3. Solution Benefits
The ALTO Service offers many benefits to both end-users (consumers of
the service) and Internet Service Providers (providers of the
service).
1.3.1. Service Providers
The ALTO Service enables ISPs to influence the neighborhood selection
process of overlay networks to increase locality of traffic and also
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
regain the ability to efficiently engineer traffic that traverses
more expensive links such as backbone and transit links, thus
allowing a better provisioning of the networking infrastructure.
1.3.2. Applications
Applications that use the ALTO Service can benefit in multiple ways.
For example, they may no longer need to infer topology information,
and some applications can reduce reliance on measuring path
performance metrics themselves. They can take advantage of the ISP's
knowledge to avoid bottlenecks and boost performance.
An example type of application is a Peer-to-Peer overlay where peer
selection can be improved by including ALTO information in the
selection process.
2. Architecture
Two key design objectives of the ALTO Protocol are simplicity and
extensibility. At the same time, it introduces additional techniques
to address potential scalability and privacy issues. Below we start
with an introduction to the terminology. Then we define the overall
architecture and how the ALTO Protocol fits into the architecture.
2.1. Terminology
We use the following terms defined in [11]: Application, Overlay
Network, Peer, Resource, Resource Identifier, Resource Provider,
Resource Consumer, Resource Directory, Transport Address, Host
Location Attribute, ALTO Service, ALTO Server, ALTO Client, ALTO
Query, ALTO Reply, ALTO Transaction, Local Traffic, Peering Traffic,
Transit Traffic.
We also use the following additional terms: Endpoint Address and
Network Location.
2.1.1. Endpoint Address
An endpoint address represents the communication address of an end
point. An endpoint address can be network-attachment based (IP
address) or network-attachment agnostic. Common forms of endpoint
addresses include IP address, MAC address, overlay ID, and phone
number.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
2.1.2. Network Location
Network Location is a generic concept denoting a single endpoint or
group of endpoints. Whenever we say Network Location, we refer to
either a single endpoint or a group of endpoints.
2.2. ALTO Service and Protocol Scope
An ALTO Server conveys the network information from the perspective
of a network region. We say that the ALTO Server presents its "my-
Internet View" [12] of the network region. A network region in this
context can be an Autonomous System, an ISP, perhaps a smaller
region, or perhaps a set of ISPs; the details depend on the
deployment scenario and discovery mechanism.
To better understand the ALTO Service and the role of the ALTO
Protocol, we show in Figure 1 the overall system architecture. In
this architecture, an ALTO Client uses ALTO Service Discovery to
identify an appropriate ALTO Server; an ALTO Server prepares ALTO
Information; and the ALTO Client requests available ALTO Information
from the ALTO Server using the ALTO Protocol.
The ALTO Information provided by the ALTO Server can be updated
dynamically based on network conditions, or can be seen as a policy
which is updated at a larger time-scale.
More specifically, the ALTO Information provided by an ALTO Server
may be influenced (at the operator's discretion) by other systems.
Examples include (but are not limited to) static network
configuration databases, dynamic network information, routing
protocols, provisioning policies, and interfaces to outside parties.
These components are shown in the figure for completeness but outside
the scope of this specification.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ISP |
| |
| +-----------+ |
| | Routing | |
| +--------------+ | Protocols | |
| | Provisioning | +-----------+ |
| | Policy | | |
| +--------------+\ | |
| \ | |
| \ | |
| +-----------+ \+---------+ +--------+ |
| |Dynamic | | ALTO | ALTO Protocol | ALTO | |
| |Network |.......| Server | -------------------- | Client | |
| |Information| +---------+ +--------+ |
| +-----------+ / / |
| / ALTO SD Query/Response / |
| / / |
| +----------+ +--------------+ |
| | External | | ALTO Service | |
| | Interface| | Discovery | |
| +----------+ +--------------+ |
| | |
| | Figure 1: Basic ALTO Architecture. |
| | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
+------------------+
| Third Parties |
| |
| Content Providers|
+------------------+
ALTO Architecture
3. Protocol Structure
The ALTO Protocol uses a simple extensible framework to convey
network information. In the general framework, the ALTO protocol
will convey properties on both Endpoints and paths between network
locations.
In this document, we focus on a particular endpoint property to
denote the location of an endpoint and a particular path property
called Path Rating to denote the ISP-defined cost of a path.
The ALTO Protocol is built on a common transport protocol, messaging
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
structure and encoding, and transaction model. The protocol is
subdivided into services of related functionality. ALTO-Core
provides the Map Service. Other services can provide additional
functionality. There are three such services defined in this
document: the Map Filtering Service, Endpoint Property Service, and
Ranking Service. Additional services may be defined in the future in
companion documents.
.-------------------------------------------------------------------.
| |
| .----------. .---------------. .---------------. .-------------. |
| | | | Map Filtering | | Endpont Prop. | | Ranking | |
| | | | Service | | Service | | Service | |
| | | `---------------' `---------------' `-------------' |
| | Server | .-------------------------------------------------. |
| |Capability| | Map Service | |
| | | | .-------------. .--------------. | |
| | | | | Network Map | | Cost Map | | |
| | | | `-------------' `--------------' | |
| `----------' `-------------------------------------------------' |
| |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------'
Figure 1: ALTO Protocol Structure
3.1. Server Capability
It lists the details on the information that can be provided by an
ALTO Server. The configuration includes, for example, details about
the operations and cost metrics supported by the ALTO Server. The
capability document can be downloaded by ALTO Clients or provisioned
into devices.
3.2. Services
3.2.1. Map Service
The Map Service provides batch information to ALTO Clients. Two maps
are provided in this document. The Network Map (See Section 4)
provides the full set of network location groupings defined by the
ALTO Server and the endpoints contained with each grouping. The Cost
Map (see Section 5.2.1) provides costs between the defined groupings.
These two maps can be thought of (and implemented as) as simple files
with appropriate encoding provided by the ALTO Server.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
3.2.2. Map Filtering Service
Resource constrained ALTO Clients may benefit from query results
being filtered at the ALTO Server. This avoids an ALTO Client
spending network bandwidth collecting results and performing client-
side filtering. The Map Filtering Service allows ALTO Clients to
query for ALTO Server maps based on additional parameters.
3.2.3. Endpoint Property Service
This service allows ALTO Clients to look up properties for individual
endpoints. An example endpoint property is its network location (its
grouping defined by the ALTO Server) or connectivity type (e.g.,
ADSL, Cable, or FioS).
3.2.4. Ranking Service
Some ALTO Clients may also benefit from querying for rankings and
costs based on endpoints. The Ranking Service allows an ALTO Server
to return either numerical costs or ordinal costs (rankings) for
additional network locations types such as Endpoints.
4. Network Map
In this section, we give more detail on the particular endpoint
property named PID. In the next section, we give more detail about
the particular path property named Path Rating.
In reality many endpoints are very close to one another in terms of
network connectivity, for example, endpoints on the same site of an
enterprise. By treating a group of endpoints together as a single
entity in ALTO, we can achieve much greater scalability without
loosing any critical information.
The Network Location endpoint property allows an ALTO Server to group
endpoints together to indicate their proximity. The resulting set of
groupings is called the ALTO Network Map.
The Network Map may also be used to communicate simple preferences.
For example, an ISP may prefer that endpoints associated with the
same PoP (Point-of-Presence) in a P2P application communicate locally
instead of communicating with endpoints in other PoPs.
Note that the definition of proximity varies depending on the
granularity of the ALTO algorithm. In one deployment, endpoints on
the same subnet may be considered close; while in another deployment,
endpoints connected to the same PoP may be considered close.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
4.1. PID
Each group can be identified by a provider-defined Network Location
identifier called a PID. There can be many different ways of
grouping the endpoints and assigning PIDs.
Thus, a PID is a identifier providing an indirect and network-
agnostic way to specify a network aggregation. For example, a PID
may be defined (by the ALTO service provider) to denote a subnet, a
set of subnets, a metropolitan area, a PoP, an autonomous system, or
a set of autonomous systems. Aggregation of endpoints into PIDs can
indicate proximity. Also, aggregation can improve scalability. In
particular, network preferences (costs) may be specified between
PIDs, allowing cost information to be more compact and updated at a
smaller time scale than the network aggregations themselves.
4.2. Example Network Map
Figure 2 illustrates an example Network Map. PIDs are used to
identify network-agnostic aggregations.
.--------------------------------------------------------.
| ALTO Network Map |
| |
| .--------------------------------. .---------------. |
| | NetLoc: PID-1 | | NetLoc: PID-2 | |
| | .---------------------------. | | ... | |
| | | 128.36.0.0/16 | | `---------------` |
| | | .-----------------------. | | |
| | | | Endpoint: 128.36.9.8 | | | .---------------. |
| | | `-----------------------` | | | NetLoc: PID-3 | |
| | `---------------------------` | | ... | |
| | .---------------------------. | `---------------` |
| | | 130.132.0.0/16 | | |
| | | .-----------------------. | | .---------------. |
| | | | Endpoint: 130.132.1.2 | | | | NetLoc: PID-4 | |
| | | `-----------------------` | | | ... | |
| | `---------------------------` | `---------------` |
| `--------------------------------` |
| |
`--------------------------------------------------------`
Figure 2: Example Network Map
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
5. Path Rating
In this section we define a particular path property named Path
Rating.
5.1. Path Cost
Path Rating is based on Path Cost, which conveys the preference of an
ALTO Server on communication among Network Locations. Path Costs
have attributes:
o Type: identifies what the costs represent;
o Mode: identifies how the costs should be interpreted (numerical or
ordinal interpretation).
5.1.1. Cost Type
The Type attribute indicates what the cost represents. For example,
an ALTO Server could define costs representing air-miles, hop-counts,
or generic routing costs.
Cost types are indicated in protocol messages as alphanumeric
strings. An ALTO Server MUST at least define the routing cost type
denoted by the string 'routingcost'.
Note that an ISP may internally compute routing cost using any method
it chooses (including air-miles or hop-count).
If an ALTO Client requests a Cost Type that is not available, the
ALTO Server responds with an error as specified in Section 7.2.2.2.
5.1.2. Cost Mode
The Mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted. For
example, an ALTO Server could return costs that should be interpreted
as numerical values or ordinal rankings.
It is important to communicate such information to ALTO Clients, as
certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned by an
ALTO Server. For example, it is possible for an ALTO Server to
return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of the
IP addresses. Arithmetic operations, such as summation, that would
make sense for numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal
rankings. ALTO Clients may want to handle such costs differently.
Cost Modes are indicated in protocol messages as alphanumeric
strings. An ALTO Server MUST at least define the modes 'numerical'
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
and 'ordinal'.
If an ALTO Client requests a cost Mode that is not supported, the
ALTO Server MUST reply with costs having Mode either 'numerical' or
'ordinal'. Thus, an ALTO Server must implement at least one of
'numerical' or 'ordinal' Costs, but it may choose which to support.
ALTO Clients may choose how to handle such situations. Two
particular possibilities are to use the returned costs as-is (e.g.,
treat numerical costs as ordinal rankings) or ignore the ALTO
information altogether.
5.2. Path Rating Query
The Path Rating Query consists of a Cost Type, a Cost Mode, a list of
Source Network Locations (note that a Network Location can be an
endpoint address or a PID), and a list of Destination Network
Locations.
Specifically, assume that a Path Rating query has a list of multiple
Source Network Locations, say [Src_1, Src_2, ..., Src_m], and a list
of multiple Destination Network Locations, say [Dst_1, Dst_2, ...,
Dst_n], then the ALTO Server will compute the Path Cost for each
communicating pair (i.e., Src_1 -> Dst_1, ..., Src_1 -> Dst_n, ...,
Src_m -> Dst_1, ..., Src_m -> Dst_n).
5.2.1. Cost Map
We refer to the Response containing the m*n entries as a Cost Map.
If the Cost Type is ordinal, the ranking of each communicating pair
is relative to the m*n entries.
5.2.2. Ranking List
If there is a single Source Network Location, we also say that the
response is a Ranking List.
5.2.3. Network Map and Cost Map Dependency
Note that if a Path Rating query contains any PID in the list of
Source Network Locations or the list of Destination Network
Locations, we say that the particular Path Rating is generated based
on a particular Network Map. Version Tags are introduced to ensure
that ALTO Clients are able to use consistent information even though
the information is provided in two maps. One advantage of separating
ALTO information into a Network Map and a Cost Map is that the two
components can be updated at different time scales. For example,
Network Maps may be stable for a longer time while Cost Maps may be
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
updated to reflect dynamic network conditions.
6. Protocol Overview
6.1. Design Approach
The ALTO Protocol design uses a RESTful interface with the goal of
leveraging current HTTP [2] [3] implementations and infrastructure.
ALTO messages are denoted with HTTP Content-Type "application/alto".
Message encodings use a structured, text-based format. The exact
encoding will be documented in a future revision, as the current
focus is overall protocol architecture and operations.
These design decisions make the protocol easier to understand and
debug, and allows for flexible ALTO Server implementation strategies.
More importantly, however, this enables use of existing
implementations and infrastructure, and allows for simple caching and
redistribution of ALTO information to increase scalability.
6.1.1. Use of Existing Infrastructure
An important design consideration for the ALTO Protocol is easy
integration with existing applications and infrastructure. As
outlined above, HTTP is a natural choice. In particular, this ALTO
Protocol design leverages:
o the huge installed base of infrastructure, including HTTP caches,
o mature software implementations,
o the fact that many P2P clients already have an embedded HTTP
client, and
o authentication and encryption mechanisms in HTTP and SSL.
6.1.2. ALTO Information Reuse and Redistribution
ALTO information may be useful to a large number of applications and
users. Distributing ALTO information must be efficient and not
become a bottleneck. Therefore, the ALTO Protocol specified in this
document integrates with existing HTTP caching infrastructure to
allow reuse of ALTO information by ALTO Clients and reduce load on
ALTO servers. ALTO information may also be cached or redistributed
using application-dependent mechanisms, such as P2P DHTs or P2P file-
sharing.
For example, a full Network Map may be reused by all ALTO Clients
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
using the ALTO Server.
6.2. Message Format
The ALTO Protocol uses a RESTful design operating over HTTP. Both
Query and Response follow the standard format for HTTP Request and
Response messages [2] [3]. This section provides an overview of the
components of a Query message sent from an ALTO Client to an ALTO
Server, as well as the components of a Response message returned by
an ALTO Server. Note that if caching or redistribution is used, the
Response message may be returned from another (possibly third-party)
entity. Reuse and Redistrubution is further discussed in
Section 11.4.
6.2.1. Query Message
A Query message is generated by an ALTO Client and sent to an ALTO
Server. The ALTO Protocol employs the following components of the
HTTP request message:
Method: Indicates operation requested by the ALTO Client (along with
URI Path).
URI Path: Indicates the operation requested by the ALTO Client
(along with Method).
URI Query String Parameters: Indicates parameters for the requested
operation. Note that in the messaging specification in Section 7,
we abbreviate these as 'URI QS Params'. Order of query string
parameters is not specified. Some parameters are restricted in
how many times they appear. We use the notation 'min..max' to
denote the the minimum and maximum times they may appear, where
'max' may be '*' to denote unbounded. If no parameters are
defined for a particular ALTO request message, the query string
MUST be empty (and there MUST be no '?' included in the URI Path).
Headers: Indicates encoding of the Body. If the HTTP body of the
request is non-empty, the Content-Type header MUST be set to
"application/alto".
Body: Indicates additional request parameters that are not concisely
representable as Query String parameters. If no Body is defined
for a particular ALTO request message, the HTTP request body MUST
be empty.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
6.2.2. Response Message
A Response message is generated by an ALTO Server, which corresponds
to a particular Query message. The ALTO Protocol employs the
following components of the HTTP Response message:
Status Code: Indicates either success or an error condition.
Headers: Indicates encoding of the Body and caching directives. If
the HTTP body of the response is non-empty, the Content-Type
header MUST be set to "application/alto"
Body: Contains data requested by the ALTO Client.
6.2.3. Query and Response Body Encoding
When the Body of a Query or Response message is not empty, it MUST
contain a properly-encoded message. This section will be updated to
include common requirements when an encoding format is decided.
7. Protocol Messaging
This section specifies client and server processing, as well as
messages in the ALTO Protocol. Details common to ALTO Server
processing of all messages is first discussed, followed by details of
the individual messages.
Note that the primary focus of the current draft is the architecture
and protocol operations, and only the structure of messages is
specified (without actual message encoding). Additionally, the
following details have been omitted for clarity:
o protocol version number
o transaction ID
o map version tags
o HTTP URL encoding
This section will be updated as revisions are made to protocol
details and encodings.
7.1. Client Processing
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
7.1.1. General Processing
The protocol is structured in such a way that independent of the
query type there are a set of general processing steps. The ALTO
Client selects a specific ALTO Server to communicate with and
establishes a TCP connection. The ALTO protocol on top of this TCP
connection MAY be secured through SSL/TLS to implement server and/or
client authentication. HTTP Basic or Digest authentication MAY
additionally be used. The client then creates and sends a query
message, which MUST be constructed as specified in Section 7.3. The
ALTO Client MUST additionally follow any HTTP encoding rules as well
as TCP transport considerations.
7.1.2. General Error Conditions
In the case the client does not receive an appropriate response from
the server it can choose another server to communicate or fall back
to perform peer selection without the use of ALTO information.
7.2. Server Processing
7.2.1. Successful Responses
If a Query message is successfully processed an an ALTO response is
generated, the HTTP status code in the response MUST be set to 200.
7.2.2. General Error Conditions
This section specifies ALTO Server behavior when it recevies a Query
message that cannot be processed due to a problem with processing the
Query message itself.
7.2.2.1. Invalid Query Format
If any component of the Query message is formatted incorrectly (i.e.,
it does not follow the formats in Section 7.3), the ALTO Server MUST
return HTTP Status Code 400.
7.2.2.2. Unsupported Query
If an ALTO Server does not support the operation indicated in the
Query message, the ALTO Server MUST return HTTP Status Code 501.
7.2.3. Caching Parameters
If the response generated by the ALTO Server is cachable, the ALTO
Server MAY include relevant HTTP headers, enabling it to be cached by
existing HTTP Caches or the ALTO Client itself.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
7.3. ALTO Queries
7.3.1. Server Capability
The Server Capability query allows an ALTO Client to determine the
available operations of a particular ALTO Server
This query MUST be supported.
7.3.1.1. Query
Method : 'GET'
URI Path : '/capability'
7.3.1.2. Example Response Structure
{
"instance-name": "alto.example.com",
"uri": "http:\/\/alto.example.com:6671",
"cost": [
{"type":"latency", "units":"ms"},
{"type":"pDistance","units":"scalar"},
{"type":"bandwidth","units":"kbps"}
],
"constraint-support": false
}
7.3.2. Map Service
The Map Service provides batch information to ALTO Clients in the
form of two maps: a Network Map and Cost Map. All queries in the Map
Service MUST be supported.
7.3.2.1. Network Map
The full Network Map is an instantiation of the Reverse Property
Lookup where the ALTO Server lists for each PID, the network
locations (endpoints) within the PID.
7.3.2.1.1. Query
Method : 'GET'
URI Path : '/prop/pid/map'
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
7.3.2.1.2. Example Response Structure
{
"PID1" : [
"128.36.1.0/24",
"132.130.1.0/24",
"132.130.2.0/24"
],
"PID2" : [ "130.132.3.0/24" ],
"PID3" : [ "0.0.0.0/0" ]
}
7.3.2.2. Cost Map
The full Cost Map is an instantiation of the Path Rating Query where
the ALTO Server lists for each pair of source/destination PID, the
Path Cost from the source to destination.
ALTO Server provides costs using the default Cost Type
('routingcost') and default Cost Mode ('numerical').
7.3.2.2.1. Query
Method : 'GET'
URI Path : '/cost/pid/map'
7.3.2.2.2. Example Response Structure
{
"Type": "routingcost",
"Mode": "numerical",
"Map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": 1, "PID2": 5 , "PID3": 10 },
"PID2": { "PID1": 5 , "PID2": 1 , "PID3": 15 },
"PID3": { "PID1": 20, "PID2": 15, "PID3": 1 }
}
}
7.3.3. Map Filtering Service
The Map Filtering Service allows ALTO Clients to specify filtering
criteria to return a subset of the full maps available in the Map
Service.
The services defined in this section are OPTIONAL.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
7.3.3.1. Network Map
ALTO Clients can query for a subset of the full network map (see
Section 7.3.2.1).
7.3.3.1.1. Query
Method : 'POST'
URI Path : '/prop/pid/filter'
7.3.3.1.2. Example Request Structure
POST /prop/pid/filter ...
[ "PID1", "PID2" ]
7.3.3.1.3. Example Response Structure
{
"PID1" : [
"128.36.1.0/24",
"132.130.1.0/24",
"132.130.2.0/24"
],
"PID2" : [ "130.132.3.0/24" ],
"PID3" : [ "0.0.0.0/0" ]
}
7.3.3.2. Cost Map
ALTO Clients can query for the Cost Map (see Section 7.3.2.2) based
on additional parameters.
7.3.3.2.1. Query
Method : 'POST'
URI Path : '/cost/pid/filter'
URI QS Params : 'type=[costtype]' (multiplicity: 0..1)
'mode=[costmode]' (multiplicity: 0..1)
'constraint=[constraint]' (multiplicity: 0..*)
The 'constraint' parameter is optional and is to be used only if the
ALTO service supports it. It allows a client to specify a target
numerical cost. The constraint contains two entities: (1) an
operator either 'gt' for greater than , 'lt' for less than or 'eq'
for equal to with 10 percent on either side, (2) a target numerical
cost. The numerical cost is a number that MUST be defined in the
units specified in the ALTO service configuration document obtained
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
from ALTO service discovery. If multiple 'constraint' parameters are
specified, the ALTO Server assumes they are related to each other
with a logical AND.
If the query does not specify the 'type' and 'mode' query string
parameters, then the server assumes the type to be 'routingcost' and
the mode to be 'numerical'. A Query MUST contain no more than one
'type' parameter, and no more than one 'mode' parameter.
The request body MAY specify a list of source PIDs, and a list of
destination PIDs. If a list is empty, it is interpreted by the ALTO
Server as the full set of PIDs. The ALTO Server returns costs
between each pair of source/destination PID.
7.3.3.2.2. Example Request Structure
POST /cost/pid/filter
{
"src": [ "PID1" ],
"dst": [ "PID1", "PID2", "PID3" ]
}
7.3.3.2.3. Example Response Structure
{
"Type": "routingcost",
"Mode": "numerical",
"Map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1" : 1, "PID2": 5 , "PID3": 10 },
}
}
7.3.4. Endpoint Property Service
The Endpoint Property Lookup query allows an ALTO Client to query for
properties of Endpoints known to the ALTO Server. If the ALTO Server
provides the Endpoint Property Service, the ALTO Server MUST define
at least the 'pid' property for Endpoints. Additional supported
properties can be defined in the Server Capability response.
The services defined in this section are OPTIONAL.
7.3.4.1. Query
Method : 'POST'
URI Path : '/endpoint/m'
URI QS Params : 'prop=[propertyname]' (multiplicity: 1..*)
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
The request body includes a list of Endpoints for which the property
value should be returned. If the request body is empty, the ALTO
Server implicitly assumes that the request contains a single-element
list with the Endpoint address of the requesting client.
Also note that the 'prop' parameter may be specified multiple times
to query for multiple properties simultaneously. For example, the
query string could be 'prop=pid&prop=bandwidth'.
7.3.4.2. Example Request Structure
POST /endpoint/m?prop=pid ...
[ "ipv4:128.36.1.34" ]
7.3.4.3. Example Response Structure
{
"ipv4:128.36.1.34" : { "pid": "PID1" }
}
7.3.5. Ranking Service
The Ranking Service allows ALTO Clients to supply lists of endpoints
to an ALTO Server. The ALTO Server replies with costs (numerical or
ordinal) amongst the endpoints.
In particular, this service allows lists of Endpoint addresses to be
ranked (ordered) by an ALTO Server.
The services defined in this section are OPTIONAL.
7.3.5.1. Ranking Query
7.3.5.1.1. Query
Method : 'POST'
URI Path : '/cost/endpoint/ranking'
URI QS Params : 'type=[costtype]' (multiplicity: 0..1)
'mode=[costmode]' (multiplicity: 0..1)
'constraint=[constraint]' (multiplicity: 0..*)
The request body includes a list of source and destination endpoints
that should be assigned a cost by the ALTO Server. The 'type',
'mode', and 'constraint' parameters behave as specified in
Section 7.3.3.2.
The request body MUST specify a list of source Endpoints, and a list
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
of destination Endpoints. If the list of source Endpoints is empty
(or it is not included), the ALTO Server MUST treat it as if it
contained the Endpoint address of the requesting client. The list of
destination Endpoints MUST NOT be empty. The ALTO Server returns
costs between each pair of source/destination Endpoint.
7.3.5.1.2. Example Request Structure
POST /cost/endpoint/ranking?mode=ordinal ...
{
"src": "ipv4:128.30.24.2"
"dst": [
"ipv4:128.30.24.89",
"ipv4:12.32.67.3",
"ipv4:130.132.33.4"
]
}
7.3.5.1.3. Example Response Structure
{
"Type": "routingcost",
"Mode": "ordinal",
"Ranking" : {
"ipv4:128.30.24.2": {
"ipv4:128.30.24.89" : 1,
"ipv4:130.132.33.4" : 2,
"ipv4:12.32.67.3" : 3
}
}
}
8. Use Cases
The sections below depict typical use cases.
8.1. ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Tracker
Many P2P currently-deployed P2P systems use a Tracker to manage
swarms and perform peer selection. P2P trackers may currently use a
variety of information to perform peer selection to meet application-
specific goals. By acting as an ALTO Client, an P2P tracker can use
ALTO information as an additional information source to enable more
network-efficient traffic patterns and improve application
performance.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
A particular requirement of many P2P trackers is that they must
handle a large number of P2P clients. A P2P tracker can obtain and
locally store ALTO information (the Network Map and Cost Map) from
the ISPs containing the P2P clients, and benefit from the same
aggregation of network locations done by ALTO Servers.
.---------. (1) Get Network Map .---------------.
| | <----------------------> | |
| ALTO | | P2P Tracker |
| Server | (2) Get Cost Map | (ALTO Client) |
| | <----------------------> | |
`---------' `---------------'
^ |
(3) Get Peers | | (4) Selected Peer
| v List
.---------. .-----------.
| Peer 1 | <-------------- | P2P |
`---------' | Client |
. (5) Connect to `-----------'
. Selected Peers /
.---------. /
| Peer 50 | <------------------
`---------'
Figure 3: ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Tracker
Figure 3 shows an example use case where a P2P tracker is an ALTO
Client and applies ALTO information when selecting peers for its P2P
clients. The example proceeds as follows:
1. The P2P Tracker requests the Network Map covering all PIDs from
the ALTO Server using the Reverse Property Lookup query. The
Network Map includes the IP prefixes contained in each PID,
allowing the P2P tracker to locally map P2P clients into a PIDs.
2. The P2P Tracker requests the Cost Map amongst all PIDs from the
ALTO Server.
3. A P2P Client joins the swarm, and requests a peer list from the
P2P Tracker.
4. The P2P Tracker returns a peer list to the P2P client. The
returned peer list is computed based on the Network Map and Cost
Map returned by the ALTO Server, and possibly other information
sources. Note that it is possible that a tracker may use only
the Network Map to implement hierarchical peer selection by
preferring peers within the same PID and ISP.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
5. The P2P Client connects to the selected peers.
Note that the P2P tracker may provide peer lists to P2P clients
distributed across multiple ISPs. In such a case, the P2P tracker
may communicate with multiple ALTO Servers.
8.2. ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Client: Numerical Costs
P2P clients may also utilize ALTO information themselves when
selecting from available peers. It is important to note that not all
P2P systems use a P2P tracker for peer discovery and selection.
Furthermore, even when a P2P tracker is used, the P2P clients may
rely on other sources, such as peer exchange and DHTs, to discover
peers.
When an P2P Client uses ALTO information, it typically queries only
the ALTO Server servicing its own ISP. The my-Internet view provided
by its ISP's ALTO Server can include preferences to all potential
peers.
.---------. (1) Get Network Map .---------------.
| | <----------------------> | |
| ALTO | | P2P Client |
| Server | (2) Get Cost Map | (ALTO Client) |
| | <----------------------> | | .---------.
`---------' `---------------' <- | P2P |
.---------. / | ^ ^ | Tracker |
| Peer 1 | <-------------- | | \ `---------'
`---------' | (3) Gather Peers
. (4) Select Peers | | \
. and Connect / .--------. .--------.
.---------. / | P2P | | DHT |
| Peer 50 | <---------------- | Client | `--------'
`---------' | (PEX) |
`--------'
Figure 4: ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Client
Figure 4 shows an example use case where a P2P Client locally applies
ALTO information to select peers. The use case proceeds as follows:
1. The P2P Client requests the Network Map covering all PIDs from
the ALTO Server servicing its own ISP.
2. The P2P Client requests the Cost Map amongst all PIDs from the
ALTO Server. The Cost Map by default specifies numerical costs.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
3. The P2P Client discovers peers from sources such as Peer Exchange
(PEX) from other P2P Clients, Distributed Hash Tables (DHT), and
P2P Trackers.
4. The P2P Client uses ALTO information as part of the algorithm for
selecting new peers, and connects to the selected peers.
8.3. ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Client: Ranking
It is also possible for a P2P Client to offload the selection and
ranking process to an ALTO Server. In this use case, the ALTO Client
gathers a list of known peers in the swarm, and asks the ALTO Server
to rank them.
As in the use case using numerical costs, the P2P Client typically
only queries the ALTO Server servicing its own ISP.
.---------. .---------------.
| | | |
| ALTO | (2) Get Endpoint Ranking | P2P Client |
| Server | <----------------------> | (ALTO Client) |
| | | | .---------.
`---------' `---------------' <- | P2P |
.---------. / | ^ ^ | Tracker |
| Peer 1 | <-------------- | | \ `---------'
`---------' | (1) Gather Peers
. (3) Connect to | | \
. Selected Peers / .--------. .--------.
.---------. / | P2P | | DHT |
| Peer 50 | <---------------- | Client | `--------'
`---------' | (PEX) |
`--------'
Figure 5: ALTO Client Embedded in P2P Client: Ranking
Figure 5 shows an example of this scenario. The use case proceeds as
follows:
1. The P2P Client discovers peers from sources such as Peer Exchange
(PEX) from other P2P Clients, Distributed Hash Tables (DHT), and
P2P Trackers.
2. The P2P Client queries the ALTO Server's Ranking Service,
including discovered peers as the set of Destination Endpoints,
and indicates the 'ordinal' Cost Mode. The response indicates
the ranking of the candidate peers.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
3. The P2P Client connects to the peers in the order specified in
the ranking.
9. Discussions
9.1. Discovery
The particular mechanism by which an ALTO Client discovers its ALTO
Server is an important component to the ALTO architecture and
numerous techniques have been discussed [13] [14]. However, the
discovery mechanism is out of scope for this document.
Some ISPs have proposed the possibility of delegation, in which an
ISP provides information for customer networks which do not wish to
run Portal Servers themselves. A consideration for delegation is
that customer networks may wish to explicitly configure such
delegation.
9.2. Network Address Translation Considerations
At this day and age of NAT v4<->v4, v4<->v6 [15], and possibly
v6<->v6[16], a protocol should strive to be NAT friendly and minimize
carrying IP addresses in the payload, or provide a mode of operation
where the source IP address provide the information necessary to the
server.
The protocol specified in this document provides a mode of operation
where the source NL-ID is computed by the ALTO Server (via the
Endpoint Property Lookup interface) from the source IP address found
in the ALTO Client query packets. This is similar to how some P2P
Trackers (e.g., BitTorrent Trackers - see "Tracker HTTP/HTTPS
Protocol" in [17]).
The ALTO client SHOULD use the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
(STUN) [4] to determine a public IP address to use as a source NL-ID.
If using this method, the host MUST use the "Binding Request" message
and the resulting "XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS" parameter that is returned in
the response. Using STUN requires cooperation from a publicly
accessible STUN server. Thus, the ALTO client also requires
configuration information that identifies the STUN server, or a
domain name that can be used for STUN server discovery. To be
selected for this purpose, the STUN server needs to provide the
public reflexive transport address of the host.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
9.3. Mapping IPs to ASNs
It may be desired for the ALTO Protocol to provide ALTO information
including ASNs. Thus, ALTO Clients may need to identify the ASN for
a Resource Provider to determine the cost to that Resource Provider.
Applications can already map IPs to ASNs using information from a BGP
Looking Glass. To do so, they must download a file of about 1.5MB
when compressed (as of October 2008, with all information not needed
for IP to ASN mapping removed) and periodically (perhaps monthly)
refresh it.
Alternatively, Reverse Property Lookup query defined in this document
could be extended to map ASNs into a set of IP prefixes. The
mappings provided by the ISP would be both smaller and more
authoritative.
For simplicity of implementation, it's highly desirable that clients
only have to implement exactly one mechanism of mapping IPs to ASNs.
9.4. Endpoint and Path Properties
An ALTO Server could make available many properties about Endpoints
beyond their network location or grouping. For example, connection
type, geographical location, and others may be useful to
applications. The current draft focuses on network location and
grouping, but the protocol may be extended to handle other Endpoint
properties.
9.5. P2P Peer Selection
This section discusses possible approaches to peer selection using
ALTO information (Network Location Identifiers and associated Costs)
from an ALTO Server. Specifically, the application must select which
peers to use based on this and other sources of information. With
this in mind, the usage of ALTO Costs is intentionally flexible,
because:
Different applications may use the information differently. For
example, an application that connects to just one address may have
a different algorithm for selecting it than an application that
connects to many.
Though initial experiments have been conducted [18], more
investigation is needed to identify other methods.
In addition, the application might account for robustness, perhaps
using randomized exploration to determine if it performs better
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
without ALTO information.
9.5.1. Client-based Peer Selection
One possibility is for peer selection using ALTO costs to be done
entirely by a P2P client. The following are some techniques have
been proposed and/or used:
o Prefer network locations with lower ordinal rankings (i.e., higher
priority) [19] [8].
o Optimistically unchoking low-cost peers with higher probability
[8].
9.5.2. Server-based Peer Selection
Another possibility is for ALTO costs to be used by an Application
Tracker (e.g., BitTorrent Tracker) when returning peer lists. The
following are techniques that have been proposed and/or used:
o Using bandwidth matching (e.g., at an Application Tracker) and
choosing solution (within bound of optimal) with minimal network
cost [18].
10. IANA Considerations
This document request the registration of a new media type:
"application/alto"
11. Security Considerations
11.1. ISPs
ISPs must be cognizant of the network topology and provisioning
information provided through ALTO Interfaces. ISPs should evaluate
how much information is revealed and the associated risks. In
particular, providing overly fine-grained information may make it
easier for attackers to infer network topology. On the other hand,
revealing overly coarse-grained information may not provide benefits
to network efficiency or performance improvements to ALTO Clients.
11.2. ALTO Clients
Applications using the information must be cognizant of the
possibility that the information is malformed or incorrect. Even
when it is correct, its use might harm the performance. When an
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
application concludes that it would get better performance
disregarding the ALTO information, the decision to discontinue the
use of ALTO information is likely best left to the user.
ALTO Clients should also be cognizant of revealing Network Location
Identifiers (IP addresses or fine-grained PIDs) to the ALTO Server,
as doing so may allow the ALTO Server to infer communication
patterns. One possibility is for the ALTO Client to only rely on
Network Map for PIDs and Cost Map amongst PIDs to avoid passing IP
addresses of their peers to the ALTO Server.
11.3. ALTO Information
An ALTO Server may optionally use authentication and encryption to
protect ALTO information. SSL/TLS can provide encryption as well as
authentication of the client and server. HTTP Basic or Digest
authentication can provide authentication of the client (combined
with SSL/TLS, it can additionally provide encryption and
authentication of the server).
ISPs should be cognizant that encryption only protects ALTO
information until it is decrypted by the intended ALTO Client.
Digital Rights Management (DRM) techniques and legal agreements
protecting ALTO information are outside of the scope of this
document.
11.4. ALTO Information Redistribution
It is possible for applications to redistribute ALTO information to
improve scalability. Even with such a distribution scheme, ALTO
Clients obtaining ALTO information must be able to validate the
received ALTO information to ensure that it was actually generated by
the correct ALTO Server. Further, to prevent the ALTO Server from
being a target of attack, the verification scheme must not require
ALTO Clients to contact the ALTO Server to validate every set of
information.
Note that the redistribution scheme must additionally handle details
such as ensuring ALTO Clients retrieve ALTO information from the
correct ALTO Server. See [20] and [21] for further discussion.
Details of a particular redistribution scheme are outside the scope
of this document.
To fulfill these requirements, ALTO Information meant to be
redistributable contains a digital signature which includes a hash of
the ALTO information signed by the ALTO Server's private key. The
corresponding public key should either be part of the ALTO
information itself, or it could be included in the server capability
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
response. The public key SHOULD include the hostname of the ALTO
Server and it SHOULD be signed by a trusted authority.
11.5. Denial of Service
ISPs should be cognizant of the workload at the ALTO Server generated
by certain ALTO Queries, such as certain queries to the Map Filtering
Service and Ranking Service. The Map Service allows ALTO Servers to
pre-generate maps that can be useful to many ALTO Clients.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and H. Nielsen, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0", RFC 1945, May 1996.
[3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[4] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, "Session
Traversal Utilities for (NAT) (STUN)",
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-18 (work in progress), July 2008.
12.2. Informative References
[5] Kiesel, S., Popkin, L., Previdi, S., Woundy, R., and Y. Yang,
"Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Requirements",
draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-01 (work in progress), November 2008.
[6] Alimi, R., Pasko, D., Popkin, L., Wang, Y., and Y. Yang, "P4P:
Provider Portal for P2P Applications", draft-p4p-framework-00
(work in progress), November 2008.
[7] Wang, Y., Alimi, R., Pasko, D., Popkin, L., and Y. Yang, "P4P
Protocol Specification", draft-wang-alto-p4p-specification-00
(work in progress), March 2009.
[8] Shalunov, S., Penno, R., and R. Woundy, "ALTO Information
Export Service", draft-shalunov-alto-infoexport-00 (work in
progress), October 2008.
[9] Das, S. and V. Narayanan, "A Client to Service Query Response
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
Protocol for ALTO", draft-saumitra-alto-queryresponse-00 (work
in progress), March 2009.
[10] Das, S., Narayanan, V., and L. Dondeti, "ALTO: A Multi
Dimensional Peer Selection Problem",
draft-saumitra-alto-multi-ps-00 (work in progress),
October 2008.
[11] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement",
draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement-04 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[12] Yang, Y., Popkin, L., Penno, R., and S. Shalunov, "An
Architecture of ALTO for P2P Applications",
draft-yang-alto-architecture-00 (work in progress), March 2009.
[13] Garcia, G., Tomsu, M., and Y. Wang, "ALTO Discovery Protocols",
draft-wang-alto-discovery-00 (work in progress), March 2009.
[14] Song, H., Even, R., Pascual, V., and Y. Zhang, "Application-
Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO): Discover ALTO Servers",
draft-song-alto-server-discovery-00 (work in progress),
March 2009.
[15] Baker, F., Li, X., and C. Bao, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6
Translation", draft-baker-behave-v4v6-framework-02 (work in
progress), February 2009.
[16] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address
Translation (NAT66)", draft-mrw-behave-nat66-02 (work in
progress), March 2009.
[17] "Bittorrent Protocol Specification v1.0",
http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification, 2009.
[18] H. Xie, YR. Yang, A. Krishnamurthy, Y. Liu, and A.
Silberschatz., "P4P: Provider Portal for (P2P) Applications",
In SIGCOMM 2008.
[19] Akonjang, O., Feldmann, A., Previdi, S., Davie, B., and D.
Saucez, "The PROXIDOR Service", draft-akonjang-alto-proxidor-00
(work in progress), March 2009.
[20] Yingjie, G., Alimi, R., and R. Even, "ALTO Information
Redistribution", draft-gu-alto-redistribution-01 (work in
progress), October 2009.
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
[21] Stiemerling, M., "ALTO Information Redistribution Considered
Harmful", draft-stiemerling-alto-info-redist-00 (work in
progress), August 2009.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
First, we would like to thank the following people whose input and
involvement was indispensable in achieving this merged proposal:
Obi Akonjang (DT Labs/TU Berlin),
Saumitra M. Das (Qualcomm Inc.),
Syon Ding (China Telecom),
Doug Pasko (Verizon),
Laird Popkin (Pando Networks),
Satish Raghunath (Juniper Networks),
Albert Tian (Ericsson/Redback),
Yu-Shun Wang (Microsoft),
David Zhang (PPLive),
Yunfei Zhang (China Mobile).
We would also like to thank the following additional people who were
involved in the projects that contributed to this merged document:
Alex Gerber (AT&T), Chris Griffiths (Comcast), Ramit Hora (Pando
Networks), Arvind Krishnamurthy (University of Washington), Marty
Lafferty (DCIA), Erran Li (Bell Labs), Jin Li (Microsoft), Y. Grace
Liu (IBM Watson), Jason Livingood (Comcast), Michael Merritt (AT&T),
Ingmar Poese (DT Labs/TU Berlin), James Royalty (Pando Networks),
Damien Saucez (UCL) Thomas Scholl (AT&T), Emilio Sepulveda
(Telefonica), Avi Silberschatz (Yale University), Hassan Sipra (Bell
Canada), Georgios Smaragdakis (DT Labs/TU Berlin), Haibin Song
(Huawei), Oliver Spatscheck (AT&T), See-Mong Tang (Microsoft), Jia
Wang (AT&T), Hao Wang (Yale University), Ye Wang (Yale University),
Haiyong Xie (Yale University).
Appendix B. Authors
[[Comment.1: RFC Editor: Please move information in this section to
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ALTO Protocol December 2009
the Authors' Addresses section at publication time.]]
Stefano Previdi
Cisco
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Stanislav Shalunov
BitTorrent
Email: shalunov@bittorrent.com
Richard Woundy
Comcast
Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com
Authors' Addresses
Richard Alimi (editor)
Yale University
Email: richard.alimi@yale.edu
Reinaldo Penno (editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA
USA
Email: rpenno@juniper.net
Y. Richard Yang (editor)
Yale University
Email: yry@cs.yale.edu
Alimi, et al. Expires June 19, 2010 [Page 34]
