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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

ALTO WG                                                         W. Roome
Internet-Draft                                            Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track                                 Y. Yang
Expires: August 17, 2014                                            Yale
                                                       February 13, 2014


                PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol
                   draft-roome-alto-pid-properties-01

Abstract

   This document extends the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
   (ALTO) Protocol [I-D.ietf-alto-protocol] by defining PID-based
   properties in much the same way that the original ALTO Protocol
   defines endpoint-based properties.

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 August 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.



Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol   February 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Consistency and Inheritance Design Views  . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  A Hierarchical View of a Network Map  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Default Containment Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Extension: Implicit Inheritance Via Nested PIDs . . . . .   4
   4.  Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  PID Properties Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Full PID Property Map Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Filtered PID Property Map Service . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   A key abstraction introduced by the ALTO Protocol
   [I-D.ietf-alto-protocol] is PIDs (Provider-defined Identifiers),
   where each PID is defined as a name and a set of associated endpoint
   addresses.  For IPv4/IPv6 networks, a PID's address set is defined by
   one or more endpoint address prefixes called CIDRs [RFC.4632].  This
   extension focuses on IPv4/IPv6 networks.

   An ALTO Server uses PIDs when defining one or more Network Maps, each
   of which is defined by a set of PIDs.  Each Network Map defines a
   logical partition of a network address space, where similar endpoints
   are grouped in the same PID, specified by the addresses contained in
   the definition of the PID.  An ALTO Server may publish multiple
   Network Maps, when there are multiple ways to partition networks.
   For example, one Network Map may partition endpoints according to
   geographical locations, and hence each PID defined in the Network Map
   represents the set of endpoints at a given location.  Another Network
   Map may partition endpoints according to the capabilities (e.g., CDN
   delivery protocols such as HTTP or HTTPS) that the network can
   provide.  In this case, each PID defined in the Network Map
   represents the endpoints with similar capabilities.

   A major missing component of the base ALTO Protocol is that the
   common properties are not specified.  In particuar, in the base ALTO
   Protocol, each PID has only a name and a set of endpoint addresses.
   The objective of this document is to allow PIDs to have properties.
   Example PID properties include "country code", "continent code",
   "ISP", "lat/long bounding box", "endpoint type" (server farm, end
   users, cell data connections, etc).  We identify use cases (e.g., VPN
   selection and CDN Capability Advertisement) where PID properties can
   provide value.



Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol   February 2014


2.  The Consistency and Inheritance Design Views

   When we define PID properties, we follow a key consistency design
   guideline that PID properties should be consistent with and
   generalize the endpoint properties already defined in the base ALTO
   Protocol.  Specifically, in the base ALTO Protocol, for each selected
   endpoint address, there can be a set of (prop-type, value) pairs
   associated with the endpoint address.  These are called the endpoint
   properties of the selected endpoint.  The ALTO Protocol allows an
   ALTO Client to obtain defined endpoint properties.

   Consider a given endpoint property p and all endpoints defined in a
   PID named pid1.  If all of the endpoints have the same value v for p,
   then it is natural and consistent that when we define the value for
   p, as a PID property, the value should be v. For the more general
   case, let ip1.p denote the value of property p for endpoint ip1.
   Assume that pid1 consists of a set of n IP addresses, ip1, ip2, ...,
   ipn.  Let pid1.p denote the value of property p for pid1.  Then we
   can consider that pid1.p is from an aggreation function of ip1.p,
   ip2.p, ..., ipn.p. Example aggregation functions include average/
   mean, mode, geo-center, union, bounding box, where meaningful
   aggreations depend on the specific property p.

   Complementing the bottom-up aggregation view, we also adopt a top-
   down inheritance view, by considering that when ip1 is in pid1, ip1.p
   inherits the value of pid1.p, if the value of ip1.p is not defined;
   otherwise, ip1.p overrides the value of pid1.p. The concept of
   inheritance is a simple, but powerful concept to reduce information
   redundancy.

3.  A Hierarchical View of a Network Map

3.1.  Default Containment Hierarchy

   A Network Map defined in the base ALTO Protocol can be considered as
   a default three-level hierarchy: with the highest (1st) level being a
   root, the next (2nd) level being the PIDs, and the lowest (3rd or
   leaf) level being the individual endpoint addresses.  An issue that
   the base ALTO Protocol needs to resolve is that PID definitions can
   overlap, and hence to determine which PID an endpoint address belongs
   to.  For example, consider a Network Map with two PIDs: PID1 is
   10.0.0.0/8, and PID2 is 10.0.1.0/24.  Then all addresses in PID2 are
   also in PID1.  The base ALTO Protocol requires that an endpoint
   address be in one, and only one, PID, among the set of PIDs defined
   in the same Network Map.  ALTO achieves this by specifying that if an
   address matches several CIRDs, the address is in the PID with the
   CIDR with the longest prefix.  We refer to this PID as the home PID




Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol   February 2014


   of the endpoint.  Thus, for the example, 10.0.1.5 is in PID2, and
   10.0.2.6 in in PID1.

3.2.  Extension: Implicit Inheritance Via Nested PIDs

   In this document, we define PID properties for a more general
   containment hierarchy than the preceding default hierarchy.  In
   particular, we consider nesting.  That is, an ALTO server may define
   PID1, PID2 and PID3 such that all CIDRs defined in PID2 are also
   covered by the CIDRs in PID1; so are the CIDRs defined in PID3.
   Hence, we say that PID2 and PID3 can be considered "sub-PIDs" of
   PID1.

   To avoid potential issues of "multi-inheritance", for example, when
   PID2 is also a "sub-PID" of PID4, we consider only the case that the
   derived inheritance forms a tree.  In other words, for the example
   that PID2 is sub-PID of both PID1 and PID4, then either PID1 is a
   sub-PID of PID4 or vice versa.  Hence, we can say uniquely the direct
   parent of a PID.  Future ALTO extensions may consider explicit
   definitions of nesting, for example, by specifying that PID1 consists
   of PID2 and PID2, without implicit derivation.

   With nesting, we define that PID2 and PID3 would inherit all
   properties of its ancestors, for example PID1, unless overriden in
   the sub-PIDs.  For example, an ALTO server might define continent-
   level PIDs, as well as country-level or region-level sub-PIDs.  If
   the ALTO server defines a "continent code" property for the
   continent-level PIDs, the country-level PIDs will automatically
   inherit that property.  Such inheritance reduces information
   redundancy.

4.  Services

   In the interests of simplicity, we will give an overview of the
   proposed services, rather than detailed descriptions.

4.1.  PID Properties Announcement

   Given the consistency and inheritance design guideline, we require
   that PID Properties and Endpoint Properties use the same property
   name space.  Such property names must be registered with IANA.

   To allow an ALTO Client to know the set of PID Properties assoicated
   with a PID Property Resource, we use the same approach as that of
   endpoint properties: announcement in IRD.  An example is shown below.






Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol   February 2014


     ...
     "resources" : {
        "my-default-network-map" : {
           "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap",
           "media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json"
        },
        "endpoint-property" : {
           "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/endpointprop/lookup",
           "media-type" : "application/alto-endpointprop+json",
           "accepts" : "application/alto-endpointpropparams+json",
           "capabilities" : {
             "prop-types" : [ "my-default-network-map.pid",
                              "priv:ietf-example-prop" ]
           },
        },
        "my-pid-property" : {
           "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/pidprop/netmap1/pidp1",
           "media-type" : "application/alto-pidprop+json",
           "uses" : ["my-default-network-map" ]
           "capabilities" : {
             "prop-types" : [ "country-code",
                              "asn" ]
           },
        }
     }


4.2.  Full PID Property Map Service

   Analogous to ALTO's Full Cost Map Service, a Full PID Map Service
   returns properties defined for all PIDs in a Network Map.

   This is a GET request.  The response message is similar to that of
   ALTO's Endpoint Property Service, but with PID names instead of
   endpoint addresses.  The IRD entry for the service defines a "prop-
   types" capability with the names of the properties that this service
   returns, and specifies a "uses" attribute for the Network Map
   defining the PIDs.

   In the interests of limiting the response message size, the Full PID
   Property Map Service would NOT enumerate inherited property values.
   Thus if PID1 defines PROP1, and if PID2 is contained within PID1 and
   does not override the value for PROP1, then the response message
   gives a value for PROP1 in PID1, but not in PID2.  In this case the
   client is expected to deduce the inheritance.  That is feasible
   because the client has all information needed to do that.





Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol   February 2014


4.3.  Filtered PID Property Map Service

   Analogous to ALTO's Filtered Cost Map Service, a Filtered PID Map
   Service returns a subset of the Full PID Property Map.  The client
   specifies the desired property and PID names.

   This is a POST request.  The response message is the same as for the
   Full PID Property Map Service.  The request message is similar to the
   request message for ALTO's Endpoint Property Service, except with PID
   names instead of endpoint addresses.  The IRD entry for the service
   defines a "prop-types" capability with the names of the properties
   this service returns, and specifies a "uses" attribute for the
   Network Map defining the PIDs.

   Unlike the Full Filtered PID Property Service, the Filtered PID
   Property Service would explicitly enumerate inherited property
   values.  Thus if PID1 defines PROP1, and if PID2 is contained within
   PID1 and does not override the value for PROP1, then the response
   message includes PID1's value for PROP1 in PID2's properties.  This
   is necessary because the Filtered PID Property Map response does not
   give the client enough information to deduce the inherited
   properties.  For consistency, the Filtered PID Property Service would
   enumerate inherited properties for a PID even if the client also
   requested properties for all PIDs that containing that PID.

5.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations relevant to this document.

6.  IANA Considerations

   No actions are required from IANA as result of the publication of
   this document.

7.  References

   [I-D.ietf-alto-protocol]
              Almi, R., Penno, R., and Y. Yang, "ALTO Protocol", draft-
              ietf-alto-protocol-20 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [RFC.4632]
              Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", RFC 4632, BCP 122, August 2006.







Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  PID Property Extension for ALTO Protocol   February 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Wendy Roome
   Alcatel-Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs
   600 Mountain Ave, Rm 3B-324
   Murray Hill, NJ  07974
   USA

   Phone: +1-908-582-7974
   Email: w.roome@alcatel-lucent.com


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

   Email: yry@cs.yale.edu
































Roome & Yang             Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 7]


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