Network Working Group S. Kiesel, Ed.
Internet-Draft University of Stuttgart
Intended status: Informational S. Previdi
Expires: December 12, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Stiemerling
NEC Europe Ltd.
R. Woundy
Comcast Corporation
Y R. Yang
Yale University
June 10, 2011
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Requirements
draft-ietf-alto-reqs-10.txt
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 specifying, assessing, or
comparing protocols and implementations.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology and Architectural Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. ALTO Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Architectural Framework for ALTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. ALTO Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. ALTO Client Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. Host Group Descriptor Support . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3. Rating Criteria Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.4. Placement of Entities and Timing of Transactions . . . 9
3.1.5. Protocol Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.6. Error Handling and Overload Protection . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. ALTO Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. High-level security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Information Disclosure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.1. Classification of Information Disclosure Scenarios . . 16
5.2.2. Discussion of Information Disclosure Scenarios . . . . 17
5.3. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Contributors List and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
1. Introduction
The motivation for Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) is
described in the ALTO problem statement [RFC5693].
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, etc.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
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 [RFC5693]:
Application, Peer, P2P, Resource, Resource Identifier, Resource
Provider, Resource Consumer, Transport Address, Overlay Network,
Resource Directory, ALTO Service, ALTO Server, ALTO Client, ALTO
Query, ALTO Response, ALTO Transaction, Local Traffic, Peering
Traffic, Transit Traffic, Application protocol, ALTO Client Protocol,
Provisioning protocol.
Furthermore, the following additional terms will be used:
o Host Group Descriptor: Information used to describe one or more
Internet hosts (such as the resource consumer which seeks ALTO
guidance, or one or more candidate resource providers) and their
location within the network topology. 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 an
ALTO server and transmitted via an 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
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
can be described by means of a host group descriptor.
2.3. Architectural Framework for ALTO
There are various architectural options for 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 [RFC5693] 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 and
information elements that are part of the above-mentioned
architecture:
o An ALTO client protocol, which is used for sending ALTO queries
and ALTO responses 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.
o Host group descriptors, which are used to describe the location of
a host in the network topology.
o Rating criteria, i. e., conditions or relations that shall be
evaluated in order to generate the ALTO guidance.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
3. ALTO Requirements
[*** Note to the RFC editor: before publication as an RFC, please
remove the draft version number from the requirements numbering,
i.e., change ARv10-1 to AR-1, and so on. Furthermore, remove this
note. ***]
3.1. ALTO Client Protocol
3.1.1. General Requirements
REQ. ARv10-1: The ALTO service is provided by one or more ALTO
servers. ALTO servers MUST implement an ALTO client protocol, for
receiving ALTO queries from ALTO clients and for sending the
corresponding ALTO responses.
REQ. ARv10-2: ALTO clients MUST implement an ALTO client protocol,
for sending ALTO queries to ALTO servers and for receiving the
corresponding ALTO responses.
REQ. ARv10-3: The format of the ALTO query message MUST allow the
ALTO client to solicit guidance for selecting appropriate resource
providers.
REQ. ARv10-4: The format of the ALTO response message MUST allow the
ALTO server to express its guidance for selecting appropriate
resource providers.
REQ. ARv10-5: The detailed specification of a protocol is out of the
scope of this document. However, any protocol specification that
claims to implement an 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 more rating
criteria.
REQ. ARv10-6: An 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.
REQ. ARv10-7: An ALTO client protocol MUST be extensible to enable
support of other host group descriptor types in future. An ALTO
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
client protocol specification MUST define an appropriate procedure
for adding new host group descriptor types, e.g., by establishing an
IANA registry.
REQ. ARv10-8: ALTO clients and ALTO servers MUST clearly identify
the type of each host group descriptor sent in ALTO queries or
responses.
REQ. ARv10-9: 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. ARv10-10: Protocol functions for mapping other host group
descriptor types to IPv4/IPv6 address prefixes SHOULD be designed and
specified as part of an 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 an 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 obtained via an alternative mechanism.
REQ. ARv10-11: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST define
mechanisms, which can be used by the ALTO server to indicate that a
host group descriptor used by the ALTO client is of an unsupported
type, or that the indicated mapping mechanism could not be used.
REQ. ARv10-12: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST define
mechanisms, which can be used by the ALTO client to indicate that a
host group descriptor used by the ALTO server is of an unsupported
type, or that the indicated mapping mechanism could not be used.
3.1.3. Rating Criteria Support
REQ. ARv10-13: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST define a
rating criterion that can be used to express and evaluate the
"relative operator's preference." This is a relative measure, i.e.,
it is not associated with any unit of measurement. A more-preferred
rating according to this criterion indicates that the application
should prefer the respective candidate resource provider over others
with less-preferred ratings (unless information from non-ALTO sources
suggests a different choice, 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
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
policies.
REQ. ARv10-14: An ALTO client protocol MUST be extensible to enable
support of other rating criteria types in future. An ALTO client
protocol specification MUST define an appropriate procedure for
adding new rating criteria types, e.g., by establishing an IANA
registry.
REQ. ARv10-15: ALTO client protocol specifications MUST NOT define
rating criteria closely related to the instantaneous network
congestion state, whose primary aim is to serve an alternative to
established congestion control strategies, such as using TCP-based
transport.
One design assumption for ALTO is that it is acceptable that the
host characteristics attributes, which are stored and processed in
the ALTO servers for giving the guidance, are updated rather
infrequently. Typical update intervals may be several orders of
magnitude longer than the typical network-layer packet round-trip
time (RTT). Therefore, ALTO cannot be a replacement for TCP-like
congestion control mechanisms. The definition of alternate
approaches for congestion control is explicitly a non-goal for the
ALTO working group [ALTO-charter].
REQ. ARv10-16: Applications using ALTO guidance MUST NOT rely on the
ALTO guidance to avoid causing network congestion. Instead,
applications MUST use other appropriate means, such as TCP based
transport, to avoid causing excessive congestion.
REQ. ARv10-17: 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. ARv10-18: The ALTO response message SHOULD allow the ALTO
server to express which rating criteria have been considered when
generating the response.
REQ. ARv10-19: An 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:
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
o One mode of ALTO operation is that an ALTO client may be embedded
directly in the resource consumer, i.e., the application protocol
entity that will eventually initiate data transmission to/from the
selected resource provider(s) in order to access the desired
resource. For example, an ALTO client could be integrated into
the peer of a P2P application that uses a distributed algorithm
such as "query flooding" for resource discovery.
o Another mode of operation is to integrate the ALTO client into a
third party such as a resource directory, which may issue ALTO
queries to solicit preference on potential resource providers,
considering the respective resource consumer. For example, an
ALTO client could be integrated into the tracker of a tracker-
based P2P application, in order to request ALTO guidance on behalf
of the peers contacting the tracker.
REQ. ARv10-20: An ALTO client protocol MUST support the mode of
operation in which the ALTO client is directly embedded in the
resource consumer.
REQ. ARv10-21: An ALTO client protocol MUST support the mode of
operation in which the ALTO client is embedded in a third party,
which performs queries on behalf of resource consumers.
REQ. ARv10-22: An ALTO client protocol MUST be designed in a way
that the ALTO service can be provided by an entity which is not the
operator of the underlying IP network.
REQ. ARv10-23: An 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. ARv10-24: An ALTO client protocol MUST support at least one of
these two modes, either the target-aware or the target-independent
query mode.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
REQ. ARv10-25: An ALTO client protocol SHOULD support both the
target-aware and the target-independent query mode.
REQ. ARv10-26: An ALTO client protocol SHOULD support version
numbering, TTL (time-to-live) attributes, and/or similar mechanisms
in ALTO transactions, in order to enable time validity checking for
caching, and to enable comparisons of multiple recommendations
obtained through redistribution.
REQ. ARv10-27: An ALTO client protocol SHOULD allow the ALTO server
to add information about appropriate modes of re-use to its ALTO
responses. Re-use may include redistributing an ALTO response to
other parties, as well as using the same ALTO information in a
resource directory to improve the responses to different resource
consumers, within the specified lifetime of the ALTO response. The
ALTO server SHOULD be able to express that
o no re-use should occur
o re-use is appropriate for a specific "target audience", i.e., a
set of resource consumers explicitly defined by a list of host
group descriptors. The ALTO server MAY specify a "target
audience" in the ALTO response, which is only a subset of the
known actual "target audience", e.g., if required by operator
policies
o re-use is appropriate for any resource consumer that would send
(or cause a third party sending on behalf of it) the same ALTO
query (i.e., with the same query parameters, except for the
resource consumer ID, if applicable) to this ALTO server
o re-use is appropriate for any resource consumer that would send
(or cause a third party sending on behalf of it) the same ALTO
query (i.e., with the same query parameters, except for the
resource consumer ID, if applicable) to any other ALTO server,
which was discovered (using an ALTO discovery mechanism) together
with this ALTO server
o re-use is appropriate for any resource consumer that would send
(or cause a third party sending on behalf of it) the same ALTO
query (i.e., with the same query parameters, except for the
resource consumer ID, if applicable) to any ALTO server in the
whole network
REQ. ARv10-28: An ALTO client protocol MUST support the exchange of
ALTO transactions even if the ALTO client is located in the private
address realm behind a network address translator (NAT). There are
different types of NAT, see [RFC4787] and [RFC5382].
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
3.1.5. Protocol Extensibility
REQ. ARv10-29: An ALTO client protocol MUST include support for
adding protocol extensions in a non-disruptive, backward-compatible
way.
REQ. ARv10-30: An ALTO client protocol MUST include protocol
versioning support, in order to clearly distinguish between
incompatible versions of the protocol.
3.1.6. Error Handling and Overload Protection
REQ. ARv10-31: An ALTO client protocol MUST use TCP based transport.
REQ. ARv10-32: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
mechanisms, or detail how to leverage appropriate mechanisms provided
by underlying protocol layers, which can be used by an ALTO server
operating close to its capacity limit, to inform clients about its
impending overload situation, and require them to throttle their
query rate.
REQ. ARv10-33: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
mechanisms, or detail how to leverage appropriate mechanisms provided
by underlying protocol layers, which can be used by an ALTO server
operating close to its capacity limit, to inform clients about its
impending overload situation, and redirect them to another ALTO
server.
REQ. ARv10-34: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
mechanisms, or detail how to leverage appropriate mechanisms provided
by underlying protocol layers, which can be used by an ALTO server
operating close to its capacity limit, to inform clients about its
impending overload situation, and terminate the conversation with the
ALTO client.
3.2. ALTO Server Discovery
An ALTO client protocol is supported by one or more ALTO server
discovery mechanisms, which may be used by ALTO clients in order to
determine one or more ALTO servers, to which ALTO requests can be
sent. This section enumerates requirements for an ALTO client
protocol, as well as general requirements to be fulfilled by the ALTO
server discovery mechanisms.
REQ. ARv10-35: ALTO clients which are embedded in the resource
consumer MUST be able to use an ALTO server discovery mechanism, in
order to find one or several ALTO servers that can provide ALTO
guidance suitable for the resource consumer. This mode of operation
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
is called "resource consumer initiated ALTO server discovery".
REQ. ARv10-36: 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 an ALTO server discovery
mechanism, in order to find one or several ALTO servers that can
provide ALTO guidance suitable for the respective resource consumer.
This mode of operation is called "third-party ALTO server discovery".
REQ. ARv10-37: ALTO clients MUST be able to perform resource
consumer initiated ALTO server discovery, even if they are located
behind a network address translator (NAT).
REQ. ARv10-38: ALTO clients MUST be able to perform third-party ALTO
server discovery, even if they are located behind a network address
translator (NAT).
REQ. ARv10-39: ALTO clients MUST be able to perform third-party ALTO
server discovery, even if the resource consumer, on behalf of which
the ALTO query will be sent, is located behind a network address
translator (NAT).
REQ. ARv10-40: ALTO server discovery mechanisms SHOULD leverage an
existing protocol or mechanism, such as DNS, DHCP, or PPP based
automatic configuration, etc. A single mechanism with a broad
spectrum of applicability SHOULD be preferred over several different
mechanisms with narrower scopes.
REQ. ARv10-41: Every ALTO server discovery mechanism SHOULD be able
to return the respective contact information for multiple ALTO
servers.
REQ. ARv10-42: Every ALTO server discovery mechanism SHOULD be able
to indicate preferences for each returned ALTO server contact
information.
3.3. Security and Privacy
REQ. ARv10-43: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
mechanisms for the authentication of ALTO servers, or how to leverage
appropriate mechanisms provided by underlying protocol layers.
REQ. ARv10-44: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
mechanisms for the authentication of ALTO clients, or how to leverage
appropriate mechanisms provided by underlying protocol layers.
REQ. ARv10-45: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
mechanisms for the encryption of messages, or how to leverage
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
appropriate mechanisms provided by underlying protocol layers.
REQ. ARv10-46: The operator of an ALTO server MUST NOT assume that
an ALTO client will implement mechanisms or comply with rules that
limit the ALTO client's ability to redistribute information retrieved
from the ALTO server to third parties.
REQ. ARv10-47: An 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. ARv10-48: An ALTO client protocol MAY include mechanisms that
can be used by the ALTO client when requesting guidance to specify
the resource (e.g., content identifiers) it wants to access. An ALTO
server MUST provide adequate guidance even if the ALTO client prefers
not to specify the desired resource (e.g., keeps the data field
empty). The mechanism MUST be designed in a way that the operator of
the ALTO server cannot easily deduce the resource identifier (e.g.,
file name in P2P file sharing) if the ALTO client prefers not to
specify it.
REQ. ARv10-49: An ALTO client protocol specification MUST specify
appropriate mechanisms for protecting the ALTO service against DoS
attacks, or how to leverage appropriate mechanisms provided by
underlying protocol layers.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
4. 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 December 12, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
5. Security Considerations
5.1. High-level security considerations
High-level security considerations for the ALTO service can be found
in the "Security Considerations" section of the ALTO problem
statement document [RFC5693].
5.2. Information Disclosure Scenarios
The unwanted disclosure of information is one key concern related to
ALTO. This section presents a classification and discussion of
information disclosure scenarios and potential countermeasures.
5.2.1. Classification of Information Disclosure Scenarios
o (1) Excess disclosure of ALTO server operator's data to an
authorized ALTO client. The operator of an ALTO server has to
feed information, such as tables mapping host group descriptors to
host characteristics attributes, into the server, thereby enabling
it to give guidance to ALTO clients. Some operators might
consider the full set of this information confidential (e.g., a
detailed map of the operator's network topology), and might want
to disclose only a subset of it or somehow obfuscated information
to an ALTO client.
o (2) Disclosure of the application behavior to the ALTO server.
The operator of an ALTO server could infer the application
behavior (e.g., content identifiers in P2P file sharing
applications, or lists of resource providers that are considered
for establishing a connection) from the ALTO queries sent by an
ALTO client.
o (3) Disclosure of ALTO server operator's data (e.g., network
topology information) to an unauthorized third party. There are a
three sub-cases here:
* (3a) An ALTO server sends the information directly to an
unauthorized ALTO client.
* (3b) An unauthorized party snoops on the data transmission from
the ALTO server to an authorized ALTO client.
* (3c) An authorized ALTO client knowingly forwards the
information it had received from the ALTO server to an
unauthorized party.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
o (4) Disclosure of the application behavior to an unauthorized
third party.
o (5) Excess retrieval of ALTO server operator's data by
collaborating ALTO clients. Several authorized ALTO clients could
ask an ALTO server for guidance, and redistribute the responses
among each other (see also case 3c). By correlating the ALTO
responses they could find out more information than intended to be
disclosed by the ALTO server operator.
5.2.2. Discussion of Information Disclosure Scenarios
Scenario (1) may be addressed by the ALTO server operator choosing
the level of detail of the information to be populated into the ALTO
server and returned in the responses. For example, by specifying a
broader address range (i.e., a shorter prefix length) than a group of
hosts in question actually uses, an ALTO server operator may control
to some extent how much information about the network topology is
disclosed. Furthermore, access control mechanisms for filtering ALTO
responses according to the authenticated ALTO client identity might
be installed in the ALTO server, although this might not be effective
given the lack of efficient mechanisms for addressing (3c) and (5),
see below.
(2) can and needs to be addressed in several ways: If the ALTO client
is embedded in the resource consumer, the resource consumer's IP
address (or the "public" IP address of the outermost NAT in front of
the resource consumer) is disclosed to the ALTO server as a matter of
principle, because it is in the source address fields of the IP
headers. By using a proxy, the disclosure of source addresses to the
ALTO server can be avoided at the cost of disclosing them to said
proxy. If, in contrast, the ALTO client is embedded in a third party
(e.g., a resource directory) which issues ALTO requests on behalf of
resource consumers, it is possible to hide the exact addresses of the
resource consumers from the ALTO server, e.g., by zeroing-out or
randomizing the last few bits of IP addresses. However, there is the
potential side effect of yielding inaccurate results.
The disclosure of candidate resource providers' addresses to the ALTO
server can be avoided by allowing ALTO clients to use the target-
independent query mode. In this mode of operation, guiding
information (e.g., "maps") is retrieved from the ALTO server and used
entirely locally by the ALTO client, i.e., without sending host
location attributes of candidate resource providers to the ALTO
server. In the target-aware query mode, this issue can be addressed
by ALTO clients through obfuscating the identity of candidate
resource consumers, e.g., by specifying a broader address range
(i.e., a shorter prefix length) than a group of hosts in question
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
actually uses, or by zeroing-out or randomizing the last few bits of
IP addresses. However, there is the potential side effect of
yielding inaccurate results.
(3a), (3b), and (4) may be addressed by authentication, access
control, and encryption schemes for the ALTO client protocol.
However, deployment of encryption schemes might not be effective
given the lack of efficient mechanisms for addressing (3c) and (5),
see below.
Straightforward authentication and encryption schemes will not help
solving (3c) and (5), and there is no other simple and efficient
mechanism known. The cost of complex approaches, e.g., based on
digital rights management (DRM), might easily outweigh the benefits
of the whole ALTO solution, and therefore they are not considered as
a viable solution. That is, ALTO server operators must be aware that
(3c) and (5) cannot be prevented from happening, and therefore they
should feed only such data into an ALTO server, which they do not
consider sensitive with respect to (3c) and (5).
These insights are reflected in the requirements in this document.
5.3. Security Requirements
For a set of specific security requirements please refer to
Section 3.3 of this document.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative References
[ALTO-charter]
Marocco, E. and V. Gurbani, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Working Group Charter (http://
tools.ietf.org/wg/alto/
charters?item=charter-alto-2011-04-28.txt)", April 2011.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
[RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693,
October 2009.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
Appendix A. Contributors List and Acknowledgments
The initial version of this document was co-authored by Laird Popkin.
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.
The authors were supported by the following people, who have
contributed to this document:
o Richard Alimi <ralimi@google.com>
o Zoran Despotovic <despotovic@docomolab-euro.com>
o Jason Livingood <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
o Saverio Niccolini <saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu>
o Michael Scharf <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
o Nico Schwan <nico.schwan@alcatel-lucent.com>
o Jan Seedorf <jan.seedorf@nw.neclab.eu>
The authors would like to thank the members of the P2PI and ALTO
mailing lists for their feedback.
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.
Martin Stiemerling is partially supported by the COAST project
(COntent Aware Searching, retrieval and sTreaming,
http://www.coast-fp7.eu), a research project supported by the
European Commission under its 7th Framework Program (contract no.
248036). 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 COAST project or the European Commission.
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ALTO Requirements June 2011
Authors' Addresses
Sebastian Kiesel (editor)
University of Stuttgart Computing Center
Networks and Communication Systems Department
Allmandring 30
70550 Stuttgart
Germany
Email: ietf-alto@skiesel.de
URI: http://www.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/nks/
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Martin Stiemerling
NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu
URI: http://ietf.stiemerling.org
Richard Woundy
Comcast Corporation
Email: Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com
Yang Richard Yang
Yale University
Email: yry@cs.yale.edu
Kiesel, et al. Expires December 12, 2011 [Page 21]
