[alto] link specific metric and aggregated metric

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244EC129465 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k94Y_X8aPJN3 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23A5129466 for <alto@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 03:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DEF82445; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:47:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:46:12 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.8]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:46:05 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Sabine Randriamasy <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: link specific metric and aggregated metric
Thread-Index: AdKuwv3fvrZbLcrtQIeOMTitVi6tPg==
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:46:05 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A821989@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.78.218]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A821989nkgeml513mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.58E61CAC.0052, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.8, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b9f1f037b28ca687efac1483dfb5dbc5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/T4dd2Ql65KnjBjqqi1IQUpidfcc>
Subject: [alto] link specific metric and aggregated metric
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:47:27 -0000

Hi, Sabine:
As we know, link specific metric can be aggregated into a new network metric, let's call it path metric or end to end metric.
I am wondering whether we should introduce a new metric or we stick to the existing metric we defined in draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-01.
Take "availbw" as example, availbw is defined as TE specific metric or link specific metric(i.e., metric is measured on the link, if we want to introduce another metric to measure available bandwidth on the path from source to destination, we have two to do that:

1.       Define "path-availbw" metric, the measurement methodology for "path-availbw" is similar to one we used for link-availbw

2.       Stick to "availbw"metric we define in the document, but we use another parameter, e.g. using context-parameter to distinguish link availbw from path availbw. In this cse, the measurement methodology is same.
Another example is in draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-01, we define one way delay and round trip delay, there are two different cost metrics and measurement methodology for these two are different. I am wondering whether we should have a single metric delay metric and use some other parameter to distinguish one from another? Yes, context-parameter add a lot of flexibility and but also add complexity. How do you make sure the cost metric with different context can be parsed correctly.
What do you think of this? Comments and Suggestions?

-Qin