Re: [alto] ALTO recharter: proposed item - General ALTO protocol extensions

Qin Wu <> Tue, 17 November 2020 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22263A0858 for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:33:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JRlYEhn7Y0ZG for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB993A07EA for <>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 19:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CZs1P55z0z67DSP for <>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:31:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 04:33:25 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 04:33:24 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:33:15 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <>, IETF ALTO <>
Thread-Topic: ALTO recharter: proposed item - General ALTO protocol extensions
Thread-Index: Ada8iyZW95v49+NOQKy/CzEZ5xW++w==
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 03:33:15 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB83F83dggeml511mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO recharter: proposed item - General ALTO protocol extensions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 03:33:32 -0000

Hi, Sabine:
Thanks for the update on the proposed item.
See my comments inline.
发件人: alto [] 代表 Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
发送时间: 2020年11月17日 1:16
收件人: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <>; IETF ALTO <>
主题: Re: [alto] ALTO recharter: proposed item - General ALTO protocol extensions

Dear all,

The paragraph below is proposed to define the WG item on “general protocol extensions”.
As the purpose of this work item is also to support other WG items that may need these extensions, your feedback again is more than welcome.

General protocol extensions to convey a richer set of cost attributes allowing to determine not only "where" and "when" to connect but also under which conditions. Such additional information will be related both to entities (e.g. conveying time-averaged (cache storage capacities and)  server load in data center supported applications) and to ALTO path costs (e.g. ALTO path cost value depending on conditions such as real-time network indications or SLA or policy or access-type or indicator type).

The working group will specify such extension in coordination with both other ALTO working group items and IETF working groups that have a focus on the related use cases.  The scope of extensions is not limited to those identified by the WIs and WGs, but is limited by the criteria set out below.

From: alto <<>> On Behalf Of Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 7:24 PM
To: IETF ALTO <<>>
Subject: [alto] ALTO recharter: proposed item - General ALTO protocol extensions

Dear all,

Please find below a WG item proposal for “general ALTO protocol extensions”, on which your feedback and suggestions will be more than welcome.

---------- Context: the current ALTO charter
o Extends the path cost values in several directions:
              - single to array of several cost metrics => allows apps to decide upon several metrics and make decision compromise
              - single cost value to array if time dependent cost values => allow apps to determine when to connect
o Extends endpoints to entities on which properties are defined
[Qin]:Good, I believe you talk about Path vector, ALTO cost calendar, and unified properties which provide a good basis for any new work.
---------- Basic Issues
+++  Issue 1: Some path cost values may depend on "contextual parameters" such as access type, SLA, policy or other indicators provided by network. In particular:
              - There may be different possible paths between source and destination, where some paths may or may not meet Application QoE or policy constraints. The Applications would like to see which path is most suitable.
              - Contextual parameters may be available at frequencies that are different from ALTO information frequency. For example, Cost on PID-Cell1 may differ, depending on some real-time network parameter value.
[Qin]: I see this contextual parameter as path constraints,  besides access type, SLA, policy, I think end to end latency, packet loss can also see as path constraints, which can help select a connection path to meet network performance requirements.
Also I think the specific intermediate network elements, transit administrative domain traversed by the flow identified by source destination pair can also be seen as contextual parameter, e.g.,  we have two end to end paths, we can have contextual parameter like:
route the path through transit domain A, route the path not through transit domain B.

or  if (service_destination matches
       Use path: => =>

+++ Issue 2: Some entities may have properties whose values change over time. For instance, ANEs may have time-varying properties on cloud or networking resources
[Qin]: ANE having time varying properties on cloud or networking resource, can ANE be set as destination end point, I think we should distinguish whether properties are owned by destination endpoint or intermediate network element?
For the former case, we may use for service edge selection in the edge computing case, the properties could be the load, capability. For intermediate network elements, one example property is timestamp or queue length, let me know what is your example properties?
---------- Potential solution(s)
+++  To address issue 1 and related : extend cost attributes towards conditional values and parameters allowing a better interpretation of the received values
- Extension from single cost value to array of values dependent on context parameters:
allowing applications to make context-dependent decisions,
allowing also to combine information generated with different time dynamics, (freshness)
See examples on

+++  To address issue 2:
- ALTO Property Calendars to extend a single property value to an array of time-dependent property values

---------- Remaining issues to be addressed
- How to define cost value attributes?
[Qin]: Please provide a use case for this, can cost value attribute be defined as contextual parameter as well?
- How to achieve a light and flexible design?
- How to moderate additional Server workload and ALTO traffic increase?
[Qin]: I am thinking when one server is overloaded, it may ask the client to redirect the request to other ALTO server. Is there any new mechanism needed here?
---------- Who will work on it, rough planning
+++  Extensions may go in standalone documents and/or extend existing ones, eg ALTO performance metrics
+++ Contributors: Sabine and any other interested people
+++ Plans for IETF 110:
              -  Reactivation and update of related existing ALTO drafts
              -  First draft for ALTO Property Calendars