[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-wu-alto-te-metrics) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

ALTO Working Group                                                 Q. Wu
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                                 Y. Yang
Expires: November 16, 2020                               Yale University
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                                  Huawei
                                                          S. Randriamasy
                                                         Nokia Bell Labs
                                                            L. Contreras
                                                              Telefonica
                                                            May 15, 2020


                     ALTO Performance Cost Metrics
                 draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-10

Abstract

   Cost metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO), and is used in basic ALTO services including
   both the cost map service and the endpoint cost service.

   Different applications may use different cost metrics, but the ALTO
   base protocol [RFC7285] documents only one single cost metric, i.e.,
   the generic "routingcost" metric; see Sec. 14.2 of [RFC7285].  Hence,
   if the ALTO client of an application wants to issue a cost map or an
   endpoint cost request to determine the resource provider offering
   better delay performance (i.e., low-delay) to the resource consumer,
   the base protocol does not define the cost metric to be used.

   ALTO cost metrics can be generic metrics and this document focuses on
   network performance metrics, including network delay, jitter, packet
   loss rate, hop count, and bandwidth.

   When using an ALTO performance metric, an application may need
   additional contextual information beyond the metric value.  For
   example, whether the metric is an estimation based on measurements or
   a service-level agreement (SLA) can define the meaning of the
   performance metric.  Hence, this document introduces an additional
   "cost-context" field to the ALTO "cost-type" field to convey such
   information.  To report an estimated value of a performance metric,
   the ALTO server may derive and aggregate from routing protocols with
   different granularity and scope, such as BGP-LS, OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE,
   or from end-to-end traffic management tools.  These metrics may then
   be exposed by an ALTO server to allow applications to determine
   "where" to connect based on network performance criteria.





Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   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
   [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 16, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Performance Metric Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Performance Metric Context: cost-context  . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Performance Metric Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Packet Performance Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Cost Metric: One-Way Delay (delay-ow) . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


       3.1.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  10
     3.2.  Cost Metric: Round-trip Delay (delay-rt)  . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  12
     3.3.  Cost Metric: Delay Variation (delay-var)  . . . . . . . .  13
       3.3.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.3.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.3.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.3.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  14
     3.4.  Cost Metric: Hop Count (hopcount) . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.4.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.4.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.4.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.4.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  16
     3.5.  Cost Metric: Loss Rate (lossrate) . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.5.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.5.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.5.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.5.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  18
   4.  Bandwidth Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.1.  Cost Metric: TCP Throughput (tput)  . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.1.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.1.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.1.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       4.1.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  20
     4.2.  Cost Metric: Residue Bandwidth  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  22
     4.3.  Cost Metric: Maximum Reservable Bandwidth . . . . . . . .  23
       4.3.1.  Base Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       4.3.2.  Value Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       4.3.3.  Intended Semantics and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       4.3.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations . . . . . .  24
   5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.1.  Source Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.2.  Metric Timestamp Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     5.3.  Backward Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . .  26
     5.4.  Computation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       5.4.1.  Configuration Parameters Considerations . . . . . . .  26
       5.4.2.  Availability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   Cost Metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO).  It is used in both the ALTO cost map service
   and the ALTO endpoint cost service, to allow applications to request
   network cost metrics.

   Different applications may use different cost metrics.  Hence, the
   ALTO base protocol [RFC7285] introduces an ALTO Cost Metric Registry
   (Section 14.2 of [RFC7285]), as a systematic mechanism to allow
   different metrics to be specified.  For example, a delay-sensitive
   application may want to use latency related metrics, and a bandwidth-
   sensitive application may want to use bandwidth related metrics.  The
   ALTO base protocol [RFC7285], however, has registered only one single
   cost metric, i.e., the generic "routingcost" metric; no latency or
   bandwidth related metrics are defined.

   This document registers a set of new cost metrics specified in
   Table 1, to allow applications to better determine "where" to connect
   based on network performance criteria.  This document follows the
   guideline defined in Section 14.2 of the ALTO base protocol
   [RFC7285]) on registering ALTO cost metrics.  Hence it specifies the
   identifier, the intended semantics, and the security considerations
   of each one of the metrics defined in Table 1.

   +--------------------------+-------------+-------------+
   | Metric                   | Definition  |  Origin     |
   +--------------------------+-------------+-------------+
   | One-way Delay            | Section 2.1 | [RFC7679]   |
   | Round-trip Delay         | Section 2.2 | [RFC2681]   |
   | Delay Variation          | Section 2.3 | [RFC3393]   |
   | Hop Count                | Section 2.4 | [RFC7285]   |
   | Loss Rate                | Section 2.5 | [RFC7680]   |
   |                          |             |             |
   | TCP Throughput           | Section 3.1 | [RFC6349]   |
   | Residue Bandwidth        | Section 3.2 | [RFC7810]   |
   | Max Reservable Bandwidth | Section 3.3 | [RFC5305]   |
   +------------+-----------------------------------------+
      Table 1. Cost Metrics Defined in this Document.

   The purpose of this document is to ensure proper usage of the
   performance metrics defined in Table 1; it does not claim novelty of
   the metrics.  The Origin column of Table 1 gives the source




Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   definition that this document uses when defining each metric.  [TODO:
   finalize the source defining each metric in Table 1]

   TODO: sentences to say why two sets:

   An ALTO server may provide only a subset of the cost metrics
   described in this document.  Hence, all cost metrics defined in this
   document are optional and not all of them need to be exposed to a
   given application.  For example, those that are subject to privacy
   concerns should not be provided to unauthorized ALTO clients.  When
   an ALTO server supports a cost metric defined in this document, it
   MUST announce this metric in its information resource directory
   (IRD).  Note that all metrics except round trip delay are
   unidirectional.  Hence, a client will need to query both directions
   if needed.

   An ALTO server introducing these metrics should consider security
   issues.  As a generic security consideration on the reliability and
   trust in the exposed metric values, applications SHOULD rapidly give
   up using ALTO-based guidance if they detect that the exposed
   information does not preserve their performance level or even
   degrades it.  This document discusses security considerations in more
   details in Section 6.

   Following the ALTO base protocol, this document uses JSON to specify
   the value type of each defined metric.  See [RFC8259] for JSON data
   type specification.

2.  Performance Metric Attributes

2.1.  Performance Metric Context: cost-context

   The semantics of a performance metric depends on the source.
   Specifically, this document defines four sources when defining
   performance metrics: "nominal", and "sla", "import", and
   "estimation".

   Even given the source, precise interpretation of a performance metric
   value, if needed, depends on an additional set of measurement and
   computation parameters.  For example, see Section 3.8 of [RFC7679] on
   items which a more complete measurement-based report should include.

   To make it possible to specify both the source and the additional
   parameters, this document introduces an optional "cost-context" field
   to the "cost-type" field defined by the ALTO base protocol
   (Section 10.7 of [RFC7285]) as the following:





Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


       object {
         CostMetric   cost-metric;
         CostMode     cost-mode;
         [CostContext cost-context;]
         [JSONString  description;]
       } CostType;

       object {
         JSONString    cost-source;
         [JSONValue    parameters;]
       } CostContext;



   The "cost-source" field of the "cost-context" field MUST be one of
   four category values: "nominal", "sla", "import", and "estimation".
   It is the operator of an ALTO server who chooses the category.  If a
   metric does not include a "cost-source" value, the application MUST
   assume that the value of "cost-source" is "estimation". "cost-
   context" will not be used as a key to distinguish among performance
   metrics.  Hence, an ALTO information resource SHOULD NOT announce
   multiple CostType with the same "cost-metric" and "cost-mode".  They
   can be placed into different information resources.

   The "nominal" category indicates that the value of the metric is
   statically configured by the underlying devices.  Not all metrics
   have reasonable "nominal" values.  For example, throughput can have a
   nominal value, which indicates the configured transmission rate of
   the devices; latency typically do not have a nominal value.

   The "sla" category indicates that the value of the metric is derived
   from some commitment which this document refers to as service-level
   agreement (SLA).  Some operators also used terms such as "target" or
   "committed" values.  For a "sla" metric, it is RECOMMENDED that the
   "parameters" field provides a link to the SLA definition.

   The "import" category indicates that the value of the metric is
   derived from importing from a specific existing protocol or system.
   For an "import" metric, it is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field
   provides details to the system from which raw data is imported.  In
   particular, one may notice that the set of end-to-end metrics in
   defined in Table 1 has large overlap with the set defined in
   [RFC8571] in the setting of IGP traffic engineering performance
   metrics for each link (i.e., unidirectional link delay, min/max
   unidirectional link delay, unidirectional delay variation,
   unidirectional link loss, unidirectional residual bandwidth,
   unidirectional available bandwidth, unidirectional utilized
   bandwidth).  Hence, an ALTO server may use "import" to indicate that



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   its end-to-end metrics are computed from link metrics imported from
   [RFC8571].

   The "estimation" category indicates that the value of the metric is
   computed through an estimation process.  An ALTO server may compute
   "estimation" values by retrieving and/or aggregating information from
   routing protocols (e.g., [RFC8571]) and traffic measurement
   management tools (e.g., TWAMP), with corresponding operational
   issues.  A potential architecture on estimating these metrics is
   shown in Figure 1 below.  Section 5 will discuss in more detail the
   operational issues and how a network may address them.

  +--------+   +--------+  +--------+
  | Client |   | Client |  | Client |
  +----^---+   +---^----+  +---^----+
       |           |           |
       +-----------|-----------+
             NBI   |ALTO protocol
                   |
                   |
                +--+-----+  retrieval      +-----------+
                |  ALTO  |<----------------| Routing   |
                | Server |  and aggregation|           |
                |        |<-------------+  | Protocols |
                +--------+              |  +----------+
                                        |
                                        |  +-----------+
                                        |  |Management |
                                        ---|           |
                                           |  Tool     |
                                           +-----------+
Figure 1. Potential framework to compute estimation to performance metrics

2.2.  Performance Metric Statistics

   Even with a specified cost context, a performance metric can have
   multiple values, as a random number.  To address this issue, this
   document allows each metric's identifier to be annotated with a
   statistics, to become <metric-base-identifier>-<stat>, where <stat>
   can be:

   letter p followed by a number:

      the number represents the percentile (for example, delay-ow-p50 is
      one-way delay at the 50 percentile, which is the median).  To
      avoid complex identifiers, the <percentile> MUST be a JSON number
      (Section 6 of [RFC8259]) without the minus or the exp component.




Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   max:

      the maximal value (for example, delay-ow-max is equivalent to
      delay-ow-p100, which is the maximal delay).



   min:

      the minimal value (for example, delay-ow-min is equivalent to
      delay-ow-p0, which is the minimal delay).



   mean:

      the mean value of the metric.



   If a metric has no <stat>, the metric is the 50 percentile (median).
   Since this scheme is common for all metrics defined in this document,
   below we only specify the base identifier.

3.  Packet Performance Metrics

   This section introduces ALTO network performance metrics including
   one way delay, round trip delay, delay variation, hop count, and
   packet loss rate.  They measure the "quality of experience" of the
   stream of packets sent from a resource provider to a resource
   consumer.  The measures of each individual packet (pkt) can include
   the delay from the time that the packet enters the network to the
   time that the packet leaves the network (pkt.delay); the number of
   network hops that the packet traverses (pkt.hopcount); and whether
   the packet is dropped before reaching destination (pkt.dropped).  The
   semantics of the performance metrics defined in this section is that
   they are statistics (percentiles) computed from these measures; for
   example, the x-percentile of the one-way delay is the x-percentile of
   the set of delays {pkt.delay} for the packets in the stream.

3.1.  Cost Metric: One-Way Delay (delay-ow)

3.1.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "delay-ow".






Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


3.1.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value conforming
   to the number specification of [RFC8259] Section 6.  The unit is
   expressed in milliseconds.  Hence, the number can be a floating point
   number to express delay that is smaller than milliseconds.  The
   number MUST be non-negative.

3.1.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal aggregated delay
   of a stream of packets from the specified source and the specified
   destination.  The spatial aggregation level is specified in the query
   context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   Use: This metric could be used as a cost metric constraint attribute
   or as a returned cost metric in the response.

   Example 1: Delay value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
     application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

   {
     "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
                   "cost-metric" : "delay-ow"},
     "endpoints" : {
       "srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
       "dsts": [
         "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
         "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
         "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
       ]
     }
   }












Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
     "meta" :{
       "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
                     "cost-metric" : "delay-ow"
        }
      },
       "endpoint-cost-map" : {
         "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89"    : 10,
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34" : 20,
           "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"  : 30,
       }
     }
   }

   Comment: Since the "cost-type" does not include the "cost-source"
   field, the values are based on "estimation".  Since the identifier
   does not include the -<percentile> component, the values will
   represent median values.

3.1.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically network one-way delay does not have a nominal
   value.

   "sla": Many networks provide delay in their application-level service
   level agreements.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of
   an "sla" one-way delay metric provides a link ("link") to the SLA
   definition.

   "import": There can be multiple sources to import one-way delay.  If
   the import is from [RFC8571] (by using unidirectional link delay,
   min/max unidirectional link delay), it is RECOMMENDED that
   "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field and "RFC8571" as the
   value.  TODO: give comments on issues of summing up statistics at
   links to obtain end-to-end results: min/max likely correct; others
   may not; TODO: remove ippm?  If the import is from the IPPM
   framework, it is recommended that "parameters" provides "protocol" as
   a field and "ippm" as the value; see Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-
   initial-registry] for additional fields which can be specified for
   "ippm" in "parameters".

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an




Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "estimation" one-way delay metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.

3.2.  Cost Metric: Round-trip Delay (delay-rt)

3.2.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "delay-rt".

3.2.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value conforming
   to the number specification of [RFC8259] Section 6.  The number MUST
   be non-negative.  The unit is expressed in milliseconds.

3.2.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal aggregated round-
   trip delay between the specified source and specified destination.
   The spatial aggregation level is specified in the query context
   (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   TODO: specify consistency with one-way delay.

   Use: This metric could be used either as a cost metric constraint
   attribute or as a returned cost metric in the response.

  Example 2: Round-trip Delay value on source-destination endpoint pairs

  POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
  Host: alto.example.com
  Content-Length: TBA
  Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
  Accept:
    application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

  {
   "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
                 "cost-metric" : "delay-rt"},
    "endpoints" : {
       "srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
       "dsts": [
         "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
         "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
         "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
       ]
     }
  }



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Content-Length: TBA
    Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
    {
      "meta" :{
        "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
                      "cost-metric" : "delay-rt"
         }
       },
        "endpoint-cost-map" : {
          "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
            "ipv4:192.0.2.89"    : 4,
            "ipv4:198.51.100.34" : 3,
            "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"  : 2,
        }
      }
    }


3.2.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically network round-trip delay does not have a nominal
   value.

   "sla": It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an "sla"
   round-trip delay metric provides a link ("link") to the SLA
   definition.

   "import": There can be multiple sources to import round-trip delay.
   If the import is from [RFC8571] (by using unidirectional link delay,
   min/max unidirectional link delay), it is RECOMMENDED that
   "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field and "RFC8571" as the
   value; see Section 3.1.4 for discussions on summing up link metrics
   to obtain end-to-end metrics.  If the import is from the IPPM
   framework, it is recommended that "parameters" provides "protocol" as
   a field and "ippm" as the value; see Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-
   initial-registry] for additional fields which can be specified for
   "ippm" in "parameters".

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" round-trip delay metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.








Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


3.3.  Cost Metric: Delay Variation (delay-var)

3.3.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "delay-var".

3.3.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value conforming
   to the number specification of [RFC8259] Section 6.  The number MUST
   be non-negative.  The unit is expressed in milliseconds.

3.3.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal aggregated delay
   variation (also called delay jitter)) with respect to the minimum
   delay observed on the stream over the specified source and
   destination.  The spatial aggregation level is specified in the query
   context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   TODO: state clear the typical var definition: V - E[V], but we use V
   - Vmin.

   Use: This metric could be used either as a cost metric constraint
   attribute or as a returned cost metric in the response.


























Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   Example 3: Delay variation value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
      application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

   {
     "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
      "cost-metric" : "delay-var"},
     "endpoints" : {
       "srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
       "dsts": [
         "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
         "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
         "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
       ]
     }
   }
   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Content-Length: TBA
    Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
     "meta": {
              "cost type": {
              "cost-mode": "numerical",
              "cost-metric":"delay-var"
       }
      },
     "endpoint-cost-map": {
              "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
              "ipv4:192.0.2.89"    : 0
              "ipv4:198.51.100.34" : 1
              "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"  : 5
            }
         }
      }

3.3.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically network delay variation does not have a nominal
   value.

   "sla": It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an "sla"
   delay variation metric provides a link ("link") to the SLA
   definition.



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "import": There can be multiple sources to import delay variation.
   If the import is from [RFC8571] (by using unidirectional delay
   variation), it is RECOMMENDED that "parameters" provides "protocol"
   as a field and "RFC8571" as the value; see Section 3.1.4 for
   discussions on summing up link metrics to obtain end-to-end metrics.
   If the import is from the IPPM framework, it is recommended that
   "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field and "ippm" as the value;
   see Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] for additional
   fields which can be specified for "ippm" in "parameters".

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" delay variation metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.

3.4.  Cost Metric: Hop Count (hopcount)

   The metric hopcount is mentioned in [RFC7285] Section 9.2.3 as an
   example.  This section further clarifies its properties.

3.4.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "hopcount".

3.4.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value conforming
   to the number specification of [RFC8259] Section 6.  The number MUST
   be a non-negative integer (greater than or equal to 0).  The value
   represents the number of hops.

3.4.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify the number of hops in the path from
   the specified source to the specified destination.  The hop count is
   a basic measurement of distance in a network and can be exposed as
   router hops, in direct relation to the routing protocols originating
   this information.  The spatial aggregation level is specified in the
   query context (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   Use: This metric could be used as a cost metric constraint attribute
   or as a returned cost metric in the response.









Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   Example 4: hopcount value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
     application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

     {
       "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
        "cost-metric" : "hopcount"},
       "endpoints" : {
         "srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
         "dsts": [
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
           "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
         ]
       }
     }

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
       "meta": {
                  "cost type": {
                "cost-mode": "numerical",
                "cost-metric":"hopcount"}
          }
       },
      "endpoint-cost-map": {
              "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
              "ipv4:192.0.2.89"   : 5,
              "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 3,
              "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : 2,
                                }
                }
    }

3.4.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically hop count does not have a nominal value.

   "sla": Typically hop count does not have an SLA value.

   "import": There can be multiple sources to import hop count.  TODO:



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" hop count metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.

3.5.  Cost Metric: Loss Rate (lossrate)

3.5.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "lossrate".

3.5.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value conforming
   to the number specification of [RFC8259] Section 6.  The number MUST
   be non-negative.  The value represents the percentage of packet
   losses.

3.5.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal aggregated packet
   loss rate from the specified source and the specified destination.
   The spatial aggregation level is specified in the query context
   (e.g., PID to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   Use: This metric could be used as a cost metric constraint attribute
   or as a returned cost metric in the response.
























Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   Example 5: Loss rate value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
     application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

     {
       "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
                     "cost-metric" : "lossrate"
       },
       "endpoints" : {
         "srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
         "dsts": [
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
           "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
         ]
       }
     }

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
       "meta": {
         "cost-type": {
           "cost-mode": "numerical",
           "cost-metric":"lossrate"
         }
       },
      "endpoint-cost-map": {
         "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89"   : 0,
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 0,
           "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : 0,
         }
       }
    }

3.5.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically packet loss rate does not have a nominal value,
   although some networks may specify zero losses.





Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "sla": It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an "sla"
   packet loss rate provides a link ("link") to the SLA definition.

   "import": There can be multiple sources to import packet loss rate.
   If the import is from [RFC8571] (by using unidirectional link loss),
   it is RECOMMENDED that "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field
   and "RFC8571" as the value; TODO: pay attention to sum losses; see
   Section 3.1.4 for discussions on summing up link metrics to obtain
   end-to-end metrics.  If the import is from the IPPM framework, it is
   recommended that "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field and
   "ippm" as the value; see Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-
   registry] for additional fields which can be specified for "ippm" in
   "parameters".

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" packet loss rate metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.

4.  Bandwidth Performance Metrics

   This section introduces three bandwidth related metrics.  Given a
   specified source to a specified destination, these metrics reflect
   the volume of traffic that the network can carry from the source to
   the destination.  TODO: fix the next sentence: For some of these
   metrics, the ALTO Server may further expose aggregated values while
   specifying the aggregation laws.

4.1.  Cost Metric: TCP Throughput (tput)

4.1.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "tput".

4.1.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value conforming
   to the number specification of [RFC8259] Section 6.  The number MUST
   be non-negative.  The unit is bytes per second.

4.1.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To give the throughput of a TCP flow from the
   specified source to the specified destination.  The spatial
   aggregation level is specified in the query context (e.g., PID to
   PID, or endpoint to endpoint).





Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   Use: This metric could be used as a cost metric constraint attribute
   or as a returned cost metric in the response.

   Example 5: TCP throughput value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST /endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
     application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

   {
     "cost-type": {"cost-mode" : "numerical",
                   "cost-metric" : "tput"},
     "endpoints" : {
       "srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2" ],
       "dsts": [
          "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
          "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
          "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
       ]
     }
   }

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
     "meta": {
        "cost type": {
           "cost-mode": "numerical",
           "cost-metric":"tput"
       }
     }
     "endpoint-cost-map": {
       "ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
         "ipv4:192.0.2.89"   : 256000,
         "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 128000,
         "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd" : 428000,
     }
   }

4.1.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically TCP throughput does not have a nominal value.

   "sla": Typically TCP throughput does not have an SLA value.



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "import": Typically there is not a routing protocol through which one
   can import TCP throughput.  If the import is from the IPPM framework,
   it is recommended that "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field
   and "ippm" as the value; see Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-
   registry] for additional fields which can be specified for "ippm" in
   "parameters".

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" TCP throughput metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.

4.2.  Cost Metric: Residue Bandwidth

4.2.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "bw-residue".

4.2.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value that is
   non-negative.  The unit of measurement is bytes per second.

4.2.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal residual
   bandwidth from the specified source and the specified destination.
   The value is calculated by subtracting tunnel reservations from
   Maximum Bandwidth (motivated from [RFC7810], Section 4.5.).  The
   spatial aggregation unit is specified in the query context (e.g., PID
   to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   Use: This metric could be used either as a cost metric constraint
   attribute or as a returned cost metric in the response.

















Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   Example 7: bw-residue value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST/ endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
     application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

     {
      "cost-type": { "cost-mode":   "numerical",
                     "cost-metric": "bw-residue"},
      "endpoints":  {
        "srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ],
        "dsts": [
          "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
          "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
          "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
        ]
      }
     }

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
     "meta": {
       "cost-type" {
         "cost-mode": "numerical",
         "cost-metric": "bw-residue"
       }
     },
     "endpoint-cost-map" {
       "ipv4:192.0.2.2" {
         "ipv4:192.0.2.89" :    0,
         "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 2000,
         "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd":  5000,
       }
     }
   }

4.2.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically residue bandwidth does not have a nominal value.

   "sla": Typically residue bandwidth does not have an "sla" value.





Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "import": There can be multiple sources to import residue bandwidth.
   If the import is from [RFC8571] (by using unidirectional residue
   bandwidth), it is RECOMMENDED that "parameters" provides "protocol"
   as a field and "RFC8571" as the value; TODO: pay attention that it
   should be the min of the link residue bandwidth among all links on
   the path.

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" residue bandwidth metric provides a link ("link") to a
   description of the "estimation" method.

4.3.  Cost Metric: Maximum Reservable Bandwidth

4.3.1.  Base Identifier

   The base identifier for this performance metric is "bw-maxres".

4.3.2.  Value Representation

   The metric value type is a single 'JSONNumber' type value that is
   non-negative.  The unit of measurement is bytes per second.

4.3.3.  Intended Semantics and Use

   Intended Semantics: To specify spatial and temporal maximum
   reservable bandwidth from the specified source to the specified
   destination.  The value is corresponding to the maximum bandwidth
   that can be reserved (motivated from RFC 3630 Sec. 2.5.7.).  The
   spatial aggregation unit is specified in the query context (e.g., PID
   to PID, or endpoint to endpoint).

   Use: This metric could be used either as a cost metric constraint
   attribute or as a returned cost metric in the response.

















Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


     Example 6: bw-maxres value on source-destination endpoint pairs

   POST/ endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
   Host: alto.example.com
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcostparams+json
   Accept:
     application/alto-endpointcost+json,application/alto-error+json

     {
       "cost-type" { "cost-mode":   "numerical",
                     "cost-metric": "bw-maxres"},
       "endpoints":  {
         "srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ],
         "dsts": [
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34",
           "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd"
         ]
       }
     }

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Length: TBA
   Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
   {
     "meta": {
       "cost-type": {
         "cost-mode":   "numerical",
         "cost-metric": "bw-maxres"
       }
     },
     "endpoint-cost-map": {
       "ipv4:192.0.2.2" {
         "ipv4:192.0.2.89" :    0,
         "ipv4:198.51.100.34": 2000,
         "ipv6:2000::1:2345:6789:abcd":  5000,
       }
     }
   }

4.3.4.  Cost-Context Specification Considerations

   "nominal": Typically maximum reservable bandwidth does not have a
   nominal value.

   "sla": Typically maximum reservable bandwidth does not have an "sla"
   value.



Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   "import": There can be multiple sources to import maximum reservable
   bandwidth.  For example, Maximum reservable bandwidth is defined by
   IS-IS/OSPF TE, and measures the reservable bandwidth between two
   directly connected IS-IS neighbors or OSPF neighbors; see Section 3.5
   of [RFC5305].  If the import is from [RFC8571] (by using
   unidirectional maximum reservable bandwidth), it is RECOMMENDED that
   "parameters" provides "protocol" as a field and "RFC8571" as the
   value.

   "estimation": The exact estimation method is out of the scope of this
   document.  It is RECOMMENDED that the "parameters" field of an
   "estimation" maximum reservable bandwidth metric provides a link
   ("link") to a description of the "estimation" method.

5.  Operational Considerations

   The exact measurement infrastructure, measurement condition and
   computation algorithms can vary from different networks, and are
   outside the scope of this document.  Both the ALTO server and the
   ALTO clients, however, need to be cognizant of the operational issues
   discussed below.

   Also, the performance metrics specified in this document are similar,
   in that they may use similar data sources and have similar issues in
   their calculation.  Hence, we specify common issues unless one metric
   has its unique challenges.

5.1.  Source Considerations

   The addition of the "cost-source" field is to solve a key issue: An
   ALTO server needs data sources to compute the cost metrics described
   in this document and an ALTO client needs to know the data sources to
   better interpret the values.

   To avoid too fine-grained information, this document introduces
   "cost-source" to indicate only the high-level type of data sources:
   "estimation" or "sla", where "estimation" is a type of measurement
   data source and "sla" is a type that is more based on policy.

   For estimation, for example, the ALTO server may use log servers or
   the OAM system as its data source [RFC7971].  In particular, the cost
   metrics defined in this document can be computed using routing
   systems as the data sources.  Mechanisms defined in [RFC2681],
   [RFC3393], [RFC7679], [RFC7680], [RFC3630], [RFC3784], [RFC7471],
   [RFC7810], [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] that allow an ALTO
   Server to retrieve and derive the necessary information to compute
   the metrics that we describe in this document.




Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


5.2.  Metric Timestamp Consideration

   Despite the introduction of the additional cost-context information,
   there is no built-in field to indicate the timestamps of the data
   used to compute a metric.  To indicate this attribute, the ALTO
   server SHOULD return HTTP "Last-Modified", to indicate the freshness
   of the data used to compute the performance metrics.

   If the ALTO client obtains updates through an incremental update
   mechanism (e.g., [ALTO SSE]), the client SHOULD assume that the
   metric is computed using a snapshot at the time that is approximated
   by the receiving time.

5.3.  Backward Compatibility Considerations

   One potential issue introduced by the optional "cost-source" field is
   backward compatibility.  Consider that an IRD which defines two cost-
   types with the same "cost-mode" and "cost-metric", but one with
   "cost-source" being "estimation" and the other being "sla".  Then an
   ALTO client that is not aware of the extension will not be able to
   distinguish between these two types.  A similar issue can arise even
   with a single cost-type which has "cost-source" being "sla", but the
   backward client will ignore this field and consider the metric
   estimation.

   To address this issue, the only defined "routingcost" metric can be
   ONLY "estimation".

5.4.  Computation Considerations

   The metric values exposed by an ALTO server may result from
   additional processing on measurements from data sources to compute
   exposed metrics.  This may involve data processing tasks such as
   aggregating the results across multiple systems, removing outliers,
   and creating additional statistics.  There are two challenges on the
   computation of ALTO performance metrics.

5.4.1.  Configuration Parameters Considerations

   Performance metrics often depend on configuration parameters.  For
   example, the value of packet loss rate depends on the measurement
   interval and varies over time.  To handle this issue, an ALTO server
   may collect data on time periods covering the previous and current
   time or only collect data on present time.  The ALTO server may
   further aggregate these data to provide an abstract and unified view
   that can be more useful to applications.  To make the ALTO client
   better understand how to use these performance data, the ALTO server




Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   may provide the client with the validity period of the exposed metric
   values.

5.4.2.  Availability Considerations

   Applications value information relating to bandwidth availability
   whereas bandwidth related metrics can often be only measured at the
   link level.  This document specifies a set of link-level bandwidth
   related values that may be exposed as such by an ALTO server.  The
   server may also expose other metrics derived from their aggregation
   and having different levels of endpoint granularity, e.g., link
   endpoints or session endpoints.  The metric specifications may also
   expose the utilized aggregation laws.

6.  Security Considerations

   The properties defined in this document present no security
   considerations beyond those in Section 15 of the base ALTO
   specification [RFC7285].

   However concerns addressed in Sections "15.1 Authenticity and
   Integrity of ALTO Information", "15.2 Potential Undesirable Guidance
   from Authenticated ALTO Information" and "15.3 Confidentiality of
   ALTO Information" remain of utmost importance.  Indeed, TE
   performance is a highly sensitive ISP information, therefore, sharing
   TE metric values in numerical mode requires full mutual confidence
   between the entities managing the ALTO Server and Client.  Numerical
   TE performance information will most likely be distributed by ALTO
   Servers to Clients under strict and formal mutual trust agreements.
   On the other hand, ALTO Clients must be cognizant on the risks
   attached to such information that they would have acquired outside
   formal conditions of mutual trust.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has created and now maintains the "ALTO Cost Metric Registry",
   listed in Section 14.2, Table 3 of [RFC7285].  This registry is
   located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-
   protocol.xhtml#cost-metrics>.  This document requests to add the
   following entries to "ALTO Cost Metric Registry".











Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   +------------+--------------------+
   | Identifier | Intended Semantics |
   +------------+--------------------+
   | delay-ow   | See Section 3.1    |
   | delay-rt   | See Section 3.2    |
   | delay-var  | See Section 3.3    |
   | hopcount   | See Section 3.4    |
   | lossrate   | See Section 3.5    |
   | tput       | See Section 4.1    |
   | bw-residue | See Section 4.2    |
   | bw-maxres  | See Section 4.3    |
   +------------+--------------------+

   This document requests the creation of the "ALTO Cost Source
   Registry" with the following currently defined values:

   +------------+-----------------------------+
   | Identifier | Intended Semantics          |
   +------------+-----------------------------+
   | nominal    | Values in nominal cases     |
   | sla        | Values reflecting service   |
   |            | level agreement             |
   | import     | Values from a given protocol|
   | estimation | Values by estimation        |
   +------------+-----------------------------+

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors of this document would also like to thank Brian Trammell,
   Haizhou Du, Kai Gao, Lili Liu, Geng Li, Danny Alex Lachos Perez for
   the reviews and comments.  Young Lee is an author of an earlier
   version of the document.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
              rfc2119>.

   [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
              September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.






Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


   [RFC2681]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
              September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI
              10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc3393>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

   [RFC6349]  Constantine, B., Forget, G., Geib, R., and R. Schrage,
              "Framework for TCP Throughput Testing", RFC 6349, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6349, August 2011, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc6349>.

   [RFC7285]  Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
              Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
              "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
              RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>.

   [RFC7810]  Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
              Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
              RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC8259, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
              rfc8259>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6390]  Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
              Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc6390>.

   [RFC7971]  Stiemerling, M., Kiesel, S., Scharf, M., Seidel, H., and
              S. Previdi, "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
              Deployment Considerations", RFC 7971, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC7971, October 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
              rfc7971>.





Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft        ALTO Performance Cost Metrics             May 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com


   Y. Richard Yang
   Yale University
   51 Prospect St
   New Haven, CT  06520
   USA

   Email: yry@cs.yale.edu


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei
   Leela Palace
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560008
   INDIA

   Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Sabine Randriamasy
   Nokia Bell Labs
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay  91460
   FRANCE

   Email: sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com


   Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
   Telefonica

   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com









Wu, et al.              Expires November 16, 2020              [Page 30]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/