Network Working Group S. Kiesel, Ed.
Internet-Draft NEC
Intended status: Informational L. Popkin
Expires: January 14, 2010 Pando Networks, Inc.
S. Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Woundy
Comcast Corporation
Y R. Yang
Yale University
July 13, 2009
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Requirements
draft-ietf-alto-reqs-01.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 January 14, 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
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
Abstract
Many Internet applications are used to access resources, such as
pieces of information or server processes, which are available in
several equivalent replicas on different hosts. This includes, but
is not limited to, peer-to-peer file sharing applications. The goal
of Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) is to provide
guidance to applications, which have to select one or several hosts
from a set of candidates, that are able to provide a desired
resource. This guidance shall be based on parameters that affect
performance and efficiency of the data transmission between the
hosts, e.g., the topological distance. The ultimate goal is to
improve performance (or Quality of Experience) in the application
while reducing resource consumption in the underlying network
infrastructure.
This document enumerates requirements for ALTO, which should be
considered when specifying, assessing, or comparing protocols and
implementations, and it solicits feedback and discussion.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology and architectural framework . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. ALTO terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Architectural framework for ALTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Sample use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. ALTO requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. ALTO client protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. General requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.2. Host group descriptor support . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.3. Rating criteria support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4. Placement of entities and timing of transactions . . . 12
3.1.5. Protocol extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.6. Error handling and overload protection . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. ALTO server discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Security and privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Host group descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Rating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Distance-related rating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Charging-related rating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Performance-related rating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Inappropriate rating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
1. Introduction
The motivation for Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) is
described in the ALTO problem statement
[I-D.ietf-alto-problem-statement].
The goal of ALTO is to provide information which can help peer-to-
peer (P2P) applications to make better decisions with respect to peer
selection. However, ALTO may be useful for non-P2P applications as
well. For example, clients of client-server applications may use
information provided by ALTO to select one of several servers or
information replicas. As another example, ALTO information could be
used to select a media relay needed for NAT traversal. The goal of
these informed decisions is to improve performance (or Quality of
Experience) in the application while reducing resource consumption in
the underlying network infrastructure.
Usually, it would be difficult or even impossible for application
entities to acquire this information by other mechanisms (e.g., using
measurements between the peers of a P2P overlay), because of
complexity or because it is based on network topology information,
network operational costs, or network policies, which the respective
network provider does not want to disclose in detail.
The logical entities that provide the ALTO service do not take part
in the actual user data transport, i.e., they do not implement
functions for relaying user data. They may be placed on various
kinds of physical nodes, e.g., on dedicated servers, as auxiliary
processes in routers, on "trackers" or "super peers" of a P2P
application operated by the network provider, etc.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
2. Terminology and architectural framework
2.1. Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119].
2.2. ALTO terminology
This document uses the following ALTO-related terms, which are
defined in [I-D.ietf-alto-problem-statement]:
Application, Overlay Network, Application protocol, Peer, P2P,
Resource, Resource Identifier, Resource Provider, Resource Consumer,
Resource Directory, Transport Address, ALTO Service, ALTO Server,
ALTO Client, ALTO Client Protocol, ALTO Query, ALTO Reply, ALTO
Transaction, Provisioning protocol, Inter ALTO-Server Protocol, Local
Traffic, Peering Traffic, Transit Traffic.
Furthermore, the following additonal terms will be used:
o Host Group Descriptor: Information used to describe the resouce
consumer which seeks ALTO guidance, or one or several candidate
resource providers. This can be, for example, a single IP
address, an address prefix or address range that contains the
host(s), or an autonomous system (AS) number. Different options
may provide different levels of detail. Depending on the system
architecture, this may have implications on the quality of the
guidance ALTO is able to provide, on whether recommendations can
be aggregated, and on how much privacy-sensitive information about
users might be disclosed to additional parties.
o Host Characteristics Attribute: Properties of a host (other than
the host group descriptor), in particular related to its
attachment to the network. This information may be stored in the
ALTO server and transmitted in the ALTO protocol. It may be
evaluated according to the rating criteria.
o Rating Criterion: The condition or relation that defines the
"better" in "better-than-random peer selection", which is the
ultimate goal of ALTO. Examples may include "host's Internet
access is not subject to volume based charging (flat rate)" or
"low topological distance". Some rating criteria, such as "low
topological distance", need to include a reference point, i. e.,
"low topological distance from a given resource consumer", which
can be described by means of a host group descriptor.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
2.3. Architectural framework for ALTO
There are various architectural options how ALTO could be
implemented, and specifying or mandating one specific architecture is
out of the scope of this document.
The ALTO Working Group Charter [ALTO-charter] itemizes several key
components, which shall be elaborated and specified by the ALTO
Working Group. The ALTO problem statement
[I-D.ietf-alto-problem-statement] defines a terminology (see
Section 2.2) and presents a figure that gives a high-level overview
of protocol interaction between ALTO elements.
This document itemizes requirements for the following components of
the abovementioned architecture:
o The ALTO client protocol, which is used for sending ALTO queries
and ALTO replies between ALTO client and ALTO server.
o The discovery mechanism, which will be used by ALTO clients in
order to find out where to send ALTO requests.
o The overall architecture, especially with respect to security and
privacy issues.
Furthermore, this document describes the following data structures,
which might be used in the ALTO client protocol:
o Host group descriptors, which are used to describe the location of
a host in the network topology.
o Rating criteria, i. e., conditions that shall be evaluated in
order to generate the ALTO guidance.
Requirements regarding other components are not considered in the
current version of this document, but may be added later.
2.4. Sample use cases
The ALTO problem statement [I-D.ietf-alto-problem-statement] presents
a figure that gives a high-level overview of protocol interaction
between ALTO elements. The following figures are somewhat more
elaborated and extended versions of it, in order to give some non-
normative examples of ALTO usage. It can also be seen that, in some
use cases, some of the requirements presented in later sections are
more relevant than in others.
Figure 1 shows an ALTO use case with a DHT-based P2P application.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
Using this distributed lookup mechanism, a peer can figure out which
other peers are candidate resource providers for a desired resource.
Every peer software includes an ALTO client, in order to request and
receive guidance on peer selection from the ALTO servers.
From an ALTO perspective this means that the ALTO servers will
receive ALTO queries from a rather large number of different ALTO
clients. The performance of many clients and their Internet
connectivity may be rather limited and therefore, this puts certain
restrictions on the amount of guiding data that can be sent to them.
Furthermore, the privacy-sensitive IP addresses of the peers are
visible to the (operators of the) ALTO servers, as these are also the
source addresses of the ALTO query messages.
Figure 2 shows an ALTO use case with a P2P application that makes use
of a centralized resource directory (in some specific P2P
implementations called a "tracker"). In this scenario the ALTO
servers receive queries only from few entities, i.e., the resource
directories. As these resource directories must be powerful machines
anyway, it may be reasonable to send large amounts of ALTO guidance
data to them, which will be cached there. Furthermore, in this
scenario it may be possible to hide the exact addresses of the peers
from the ALTO server.
+-----+
=====| |**
==== +-----+ *
==== * *
==== * *
+-----+ +------+===== +-----+ *
| |.....| |======================| | *
+-----+ +------+===== +-----+ *
Source of ALTO ==== * *
topological service ==== * *
information ==== +-----+ *
=====| |**
+-----+
Legend:
=== ALTO client protocol
*** Application protocol
... Provisioning protocol
Figure 1: Overview of protocol interaction between ALTO elements,
scenario without resource directory
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
+-----+
**| |**
** +-----+ *
** * *
** * *
+-----+ +------+ +-----+** +-----+ *
| |.....| |=====| |**********| | *
+-----+ +------+ +-----+** +-----+ *
Source of ALTO Resource ** * *
topological service directory ** * *
information ("tracker") ** +-----+ *
**| |**
+-----+
Peers
Legend:
=== ALTO client protocol
*** Application protocol
... Provisioning protocol
Figure 2: Overview of protocol interaction between ALTO elements,
scenario with resource directory
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
3. ALTO requirements
3.1. ALTO client protocol
3.1.1. General requirements
REQ. ARv01-1: The ALTO service is provided by one or more ALTO
servers. ALTO servers MUST implement the ALTO client protocol, for
receiving ALTO queries from ALTO clients and for sending the
corresponding ALTO replies.
REQ. ARv01-2: ALTO clients MUST implement the ALTO client protocol,
for sending ALTO queries to ALTO servers and for receiving the
corresponding ALTO replies.
REQ. ARv01-3: The format of the ALTO query message MUST allow the
ALTO client to solicit guidance for selecting appropriate resource
providers.
REQ. ARv01-4: The format of the ALTO reply message MUST allow the
ALTO server to express its guidance for selecting appropriate
resource providers.
REQ. ARv01-5: The detailed specification of a protocol is out of the
scope of this document. However, any protocol specification that
claims to implement the ALTO client protocol MUST be compliant to the
requirements itemized in this document.
3.1.2. Host group descriptor support
The ALTO guidance is based on the evaluation of several resource
providers or groups of resource providers, which are characterized by
means of host group descriptors, considering one or several rating
criteria.
REQ. ARv01-6: The ALTO client protocol MUST support the usage of
several different host group descriptor types.
REQ. ARv01-7: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST define a
basic set of host group descriptor types, which MUST be supported by
all implementations of the ALTO client protocol.
REQ. ARv01-8: The ALTO client protocol MUST support the host group
descriptor types "IPv4 address prefix" and "IPv6 address prefix."
They can be used to specify the IP address of one host, or an IP
address range (in CIDR notation), which contains all hosts in
question. It is also possible to specify a broader address range
(i.e., a shorter prefix length) than the intended group of hosts
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
actually uses, in order to conceal their exact identity.
REQ. ARv01-9: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST define an
appropriate procedure for adding new host group descriptor types,
e.g., by establishing an IANA registry.
See Section 4 for a discussion of possible other host group
descriptor types.
REQ. ARv01-10: ALTO clients and ALTO servers MUST clearly identify
the type of each host group descriptor sent in ALTO queries or
replies.
REQ. ARv01-11: For host group descriptor types other than "IPv4
address prefix" and "IPv6 address prefix", the host group descriptor
type identification MUST be supplemented by a reference to a
facility, which can be used to translate host group descriptors of
that type to IPv4/IPv6 address prefixes, e.g., by means of a mapping
table or an algorithm.
REQ. ARv01-12: Protocol functions for mapping other host group
descriptor types to IPv4/IPv6 address prefixes SHOULD be designed and
specified as part of the ALTO client protocol, and the corresponding
address mapping information SHOULD be made available by the same
entity that wants to use these host group descriptors within the ALTO
client protocol. However, an ALTO server or an ALTO client MAY also
send a reference to an external mapping facility, e.g., a translation
table to be downloaded as file via HTTP.
REQ. ARv01-13: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST define
mechanisms, which can be used by the ALTO client and the ALTO server
to indicate that a host group descriptor used by the other party is
of an unsupported type, or that the indicated mapping mechanism could
not be used.
3.1.3. Rating criteria support
REQ. ARv01-14: The ALTO client protocol MUST support the usage of
several different rating criteria types.
REQ. ARv01-15: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST define a
basic set of rating criteria types, which MUST be supported by all
implementations of the ALTO client protocol.
REQ. ARv01-16: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST support
the rating criteria type "relative operator's preference." This is a
relative measure, i.e., it is not associtated with any unit of
measurement. A higher rating according to this criterion indicates
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
that the application should prefer the respective candidate resource
provider over others with lower ratings (if no other reasons speak
against it, such as transmission attempts suggesting that the path is
currently congested). The operator of the ALTO server does not have
to disclose how and based on which data the ratings are actually
computed. Examples could be: cost for peering or transit traffic,
traffic engineering inside the network, and other policies.
REQ. ARv01-17: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST define an
appropriate procedure for adding new rating criteria types, e.g., by
establishing an IANA registry.
See Section 5 for a discussion of possible other rating criteria.
REQ. ARv01-18:The ALTO query message SHOULD allow the ALTO client to
express which rating criteria should be considered, as well as their
relative relevance for the specific application that will eventually
make use of the guidance.
REQ. ARv01-19:The ALTO reply message SHOULD allow the ALTO server to
express which rating criteria have been considered when generating
the reply.
REQ. ARv01-20: The ALTO client protocol specification MUST define
mechanisms, which can be used by the ALTO client and the ALTO server
to indicate that a rating criteria used by the other party is of an
unsupported type.
3.1.4. Placement of entities and timing of transactions
With respect to the placement of ALTO clients, several modes of
operation exist:
o One mode of ALTO operation is that ALTO clients may be embedded
directly in the resource consumer (e.g., peer of a DHT-based P2P
application), which wants to access a resource.
o Another mode of operation is to perform ALTO queries indirectly,
via resource directories (e.g., tracker of a P2P application),
which may issue ALTO queries to solicit preference on potential
resource providers, considering the respective resource consumer.
REQ. ARv01-21: The ALTO client protocol MUST support the mode of
operation, in which the ALTO client is directly embedded in the
resource consumer.
REQ. ARv01-22: The ALTO client protocol MUST support the mode of
operation, in which the ALTO client is embedded in the resource
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
directory.
REQ. ARv01-23: The ALTO client protocol MUST be designed in a way
that the ALTO service can be provided by an operator which is not the
operator of the IP access network.
REQ. ARv01-24: The ALTO client protocol MUST be designed in a way
that different instances of the ALTO service operated by different
providers can coexist.
With respect to the timing of ALTO queries, several modes of
operation exist:
o In target-aware query mode, an ALTO client performs the ALTO query
when the desired resource and a set of candidate resource
providers are already known, i. e., after DHT lookups, queries to
the resource directory, etc.
o In target-independent query mode, ALTO queries are performed in
advance or periodically, in order to receive comprehensive,
"target-independent" guidance, which will be cached locally and
evaluated later, when a resource is to be accessed.
REQ. ARv01-25: The ALTO client protocol MUST support at least one of
these two modes, either the target-aware or the target-independent
query mode.
REQ. ARv01-26: The ALTO client protocol SHOULD support both the
target-aware and the target-independent query mode.
REQ. ARv01-27: The ALTO client protocol SHOULD support lifetime
attributes, to enable caching of recommendations at ALTO clients.
REQ. ARv01-28: The ALTO client protocol SHOULD specify an aging
mechanism, which allows to give newer recommendations precedence over
older ones.
3.1.5. Protocol extensibility
REQ. ARv01-29: The ALTO client protocol MUST include support for
adding protocol extensions in a non-disruptive, backward-compatible
way.
REQ. ARv01-30: The ALTO client protocol MUST include protocol
versioning support, in order to clearly distinguish between
incompatible major versions of the protocol.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
3.1.6. Error handling and overload protection
REQ. ARv01-31: Any application designed to use ALTO MUST also work
if no ALTO servers can be found or if no responses to ALTO queries
are received, e.g., due to connectivity problems or overload
situation.
REQ. ARv01-32: The ALTO client protocol MUST use TCP based
transport.
REQ. ARv01-33: An ALTO server, which is operating close to its
capacity limit, MUST be able to inform clients about its impending
overload situation, and require them to throttle their query rate.
REQ. ARv01-34: An ALTO server, which is operating close to its
capacity limit, MUST be able to inform clients about its impending
overload situation, and redirect them to another ALTO server.
REQ. ARv01-35: An ALTO server, which is operating close to its
capacity limit, MUST be able to inform clients about its impending
overload situation, and terminate the conversation with the ALTO
client.
REQ. ARv01-36: An ALTO server, which is operating close to its
capacity limit, MUST be able to inform clients about its impending
overload situation, and reject new conversation attempts.
3.2. ALTO server discovery
The ALTO client protocol is supported by one or several ALTO server
discovery mechanisms, which will be used by ALTO clients in order to
find out where to send ALTO requests.
REQ. ARv01-37: ALTO clients which are embedded in the resource
consumer MUST be able to use the ALTO server discovery mechanism, in
order to find one or several ALTO servers that can provide ALTO
guidance suitable for the resource consumer.
REQ. ARv01-38: ALTO clients which are embedded in a resource
directory and perform third-party ALTO queries on behalf of a remote
resource consumer MUST be able to use the ALTO server discovery
mechanism, in order to find one or several ALTO servers that can
provide ALTO guidance suitable for the respective resource consumer.
REQ. ARv01-39: ALTO clients MUST be able to use the ALTO server
discovery mechanism even if they are behind a network address
translator (NAT).
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
REQ. ARv01-40: The ALTO server discovery mechanism may be specified
and provided using an existing protocol or mechanism, such as DNS,
DHCP, or PPP based automatic configuration, etc. These candidate
"base protocols" differ with respect to their availability in various
access network archtitectures and their suitability for third-party
queries. When evaluating different options this should be taken into
account, in order to limit the total number of ALTO server discovery
mechanisms that have to be specified for supporting a reasonably wide
range of deployment scenarios.
REQ. ARv01-41: The ALTO server discovery mechanism SHOULD be able to
return the respective contact information for several ALTO servers.
REQ. ARv01-42: The ALTO server discovery mechanism SHOULD be able to
indicate preferences for each returned ALTO server contact
information.
3.3. Security and privacy
REQ. ARv01-43: The ALTO client protocol MUST support mechanisms for
the authentication of ALTO servers.
REQ. ARv01-44: The ALTO client protocol MUST support mechanisms for
the authentication of ALTO clients.
REQ. ARv01-45: The ALTO client protocol MUST support different
levels of detail in queries and responses, in order for the operator
of an ALTO service to be able to control how much information (e.g.,
about the network topology) is disclosed.
REQ. ARv01-46: The ALTO client protocol MUST support different
levels of detail in queries and responses, in order to protect the
privacy of users, to ensure that the operators of ALTO servers and
other users of the same application cannot derive sensitive
information.
REQ. ARv01-47: The ALTO client protocol SHOULD be defined in a way,
that the operator of one ALTO server cannot easily deduce the
resource identifier (e.g., file name in P2P file sharing) which the
resource consumer seeking ALTO guidance wants to access.
REQ. ARv01-48: The ALTO client protocol MUST include appropriate
mechanisms to protect the ALTO service against DoS attacks.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
4. Host group descriptors
Host group descriptors are used in the ALTO client protocol to
describe the location of a host in the network topology. The ALTO
client protocol specification defines a basic set of host group
descriptor types, which have to be suported by all implementations,
and an extension procedure for adding new descriptor types (see
Section 3.1.2). The following list gives an overview on further host
group descriptor types that have been proposed in the past, or which
are in use by by ALTO-related prototype implementations. This list
is not intended as normative text. Instead, the only purpose of the
following list is to document the descriptor types that have been
proposed so far, and to solicit further feedback and discussion:
o Autonomous System (AS) number
o Protocol-specific group identifiers, which expand to a set of IP
address ranges (CIDR) and/or AS numbers. In one specific solution
proposal, these are called Partition ID (PID).
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
5. Rating criteria
Rating criteria are used in the ALTO client protocol to express
topology- or connectivity-related properties, which are evaluated in
order to generate the ALTO guidance. The ALTO client protocol
specification defines a basic set of rating criteria, which have to
be suported by all implementations, and an extension procedure for
adding new criteria (see Section 3.1.3). The following list gives an
overview on further rating criteria that have been proposed in the
past, or which are in use by by ALTO-related prototype
implementations. This list is not intended as normative text.
Instead, the only purpose of the following list is to document the
rating criteria that have been proposed so far, and to solicit
further feedback and discussion:
5.1. Distance-related rating criteria
o Relative topological distance: relative means that a larger
numerical value means greater distance, but it is up to the ALTO
service how to compute the values, and the ALTO client will not be
informed about the nature of the information. One way of
generating this kind of information MAY be counting AS hops, but
when querying this parameter, the ALTO client MUST NOT assume that
the numbers actually are AS hops.
o Absolute topological distance, expressed in the number of
traversed autonomous systems (AS).
o Absolute topological distance, expressed in the number of router
hops (i.e., how much the TTL value of an IP packet will be
decreased during transit).
o Absolute physical distance, based on knowledge of the approximate
geolocation (continent, country) of an IP address.
5.2. Charging-related rating criteria
o Traffic volume caps, in case the Internet access of the resource
consumer is not charged by "flat rate". For each candidate
resource provider, the ALTO service could indicate the amount of
data that may be transferred from/to this resource provider until
a given point in time, and how much of this amount has already
been consumed. Furthermore, it would have to be indicated how
excess traffic would be handled (e.g., blocked, throttled, or
charged separately at an indicated price). The interaction of
several applications running on a host, out of which some use this
criterion while others don't, as well as the evaluation of this
criterion in resource directories, which issue ALTO queries on
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
behalf of other peers, are for further study.
5.3. Performance-related rating criteria
The following rating criteria are subject to the remarks below.
o The minimum achievable throughput between the resource consumer
and the candidate resource provider, which is considered useful by
the application (only in ALTO queries), or
o An arbitrary upper bound for the throughput from/to the candidate
resource provider (only in ALTO replies). This may be, but is not
necessarily the provisioned access bandwidth of the candidate
resource provider.
o The maximum round-trip time (RTT) between resource consumer and
the candidate resource provider, which is acceptable for the
application for useful communication with the candidate resource
provider (only in ALTO queries), or
o An arbitrary lower bound for the RTT between resource consumer and
the candidate resource provider (only in ALTO replies). This may
be, for example, based on measurements of the propagation delay in
a completely unloaded network.
The ALTO client MUST be aware, that with high probability, the actual
performance values differ significantly from these upper and lower
bounds. In particular, an ALTO client MUST NOT consider the "upper
bound for throughput" parameter as a permission to send data at the
indicated rate without using congestion control mechanisms.
The discrepancies are due to various reasons, including, but not
limited to the facts that
o the ALTO service is not an admission control system
o the ALTO service may not know the instantaneous congestion status
of the network
o the ALTO service may not know all link bandwidths, i.e., where the
bottleneck really is, and there may be shared bottlenecks
o the ALTO service may not know whether the candidate peer itself is
overloaded
o the ALTO service may not know whether the candidate peer throttles
the bandwidth it devotes for the considered application
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
o the ALTO service may not know whether the candidate peer will
throttle the data it sends to us (e.g., because of some fairness
algorithm, such as tit-for-tat)
Because of these inaccuracies and the lack of complete, instantaneous
state information, which are inherent to the ALTO service, the
application must use other mechanisms (such as passive measurements
on actual data transmissions) to assess the currently achievable
throughput, and it MUST use appropriate congestion control mechanisms
in order to avoid a congestion collapse. Nevertheless, these rating
criteria may provide a useful shortcut for quickly excluding
candidate resource providers from such probing, if it is known in
advance that connectivity is in any case worse than what is
considered the minimum useful value by the respective application.
5.4. Inappropriate rating criteria
Rating criteria that SHOULD NOT be defined for and used by the ALTO
service include:
o Performance metrics that are closely related to the instantaneous
congestion status. The definition of alternate approaches for
congestion control is explicitly out of the scope of ALTO.
Instead, other appropriate means, such as using TCP based
transport, have to be used to avoid congestion.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
6. IANA Considerations
This requirements document does not mandate any immediate IANA
actions. However, such IANA considerations may arise from future
ALTO specification documents which try to meet the requirements given
here.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
7. Security Considerations
High-level security considerations for the ALTO service can be found
in the "Security Considerations" section of the ALTO problem
statement [I-D.ietf-alto-problem-statement]. For a set of specific
security requirements please refer to Section 3.3 of this document.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[ALTO-charter]
Marocco, E. and V. Gurbani, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Working Group Charter", February 2009.
[I-D.ietf-alto-problem-statement]
Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement",
draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02 (work in progress),
July 2009.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
Appendix A. Contributors
The authors were supported by the following people, who have
contributed to this document:
o Zoran Despotovic <despotovic@docomolab-euro.com>
o Jason Livingood <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
o Saverio Niccolini <saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu>
o Jan Seedorf <jan.seedorf@nw.neclab.eu>
o Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu>
The authors would like to thank the members of the P2PI and ALTO
mailing lists for their feedback.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank
o Vijay K. Gurbani <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
o Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
for fostering discussions that lead to the creation of this document,
and for giving valuable comments on it.
Sebastian Kiesel, Saverio Niccolini, Jan Seedorf, and Martin
Stiemerling are partially supported by the NAPA-WINE project
(Network-Aware P2P-TV Application over Wise Networks,
http://www.napa-wine.org), a research project supported by the
European Commission under its 7th Framework Program (contract no.
214412). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of
the NAPA-WINE project or the European Commission.
Laird Popkin and Y. Richard Yang are grateful to the many
contributions made by the members of the P4P working group and Yale
Laboratory of Networked Systems. The P4P working group is hosted by
DCIA.
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements July 2009
Authors' Addresses
Sebastian Kiesel (editor)
NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Europe
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 4342 232
Email: sebastian.kiesel@nw.neclab.eu
Laird Popkin
Pando Networks, Inc.
Email: laird@pando.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Richard Woundy
Comcast Corporation
Email: Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com
Yang Richard Yang
Yale University
Email: yry@cs.yale.edu
Kiesel, et al. Expires January 14, 2010 [Page 25]
