Re: [alto] Some considerations about path vector design

Dawn Chan <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com> Mon, 26 June 2017 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.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 E70D1129562; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 02:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=0.874, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hotmail.com
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 sRrXKOYWM2nv; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 02:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-SG2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092253087.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.253.87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2A041270A0; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=2Mzec++346Py4NKbiaR8tR9RkdMnfYFPsmKQPED4kK8=; b=IEnMXpnXCvann10DecZu4YDXPts5ztpIsq2zSzDL9nUaIuzAaLhTP2aCwQKuhVz+89WtpD+4gtUx8jwMjKKZrrew6BOxiLMYDG1Ll8H8R4fIZW894EUwgFWmBWKyu47Y8Eikj8ln/rYBlDIDHXFv0txw3iji4FvJBtiFuNWyBsu0jGZ72sOQ0t8AYvqv6BEc0gjPg0vtgwhZ/fyF0KvPRJy6D7q2i+HqNp/wNfAImQByfPNkndvo8914t4WQKefxTlpnGuXSa1cGMzwItjBH4JudeIJH9FdLss4NDcnLKcQINl3o3dspLaZ5onA6dScmmArKcbtKmhlGOrUwCBQmGg==
Received: from SG2APC01FT025.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.51) by SG2APC01HT102.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.253) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1199.9; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:08:23 +0000
Received: from HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.250.56) by SG2APC01FT025.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.250.187) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1199.9 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:08:23 +0000
Received: from HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9c4:7e35:e642:38db]) by HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9c4:7e35:e642:38db%14]) with mapi id 15.01.1199.017; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:08:22 +0000
From: Dawn Chan <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com>
To: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
CC: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-alto-path-vector@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some considerations about path vector design
Thread-Index: AQHS32t6H605ElohBU+N4OZpXQL526I2+KkA
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:08:22 +0000
Message-ID: <HK2PR0401MB1588257A93D04368D9CC18EAB5DF0@HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAbpuyomorgNdjm3MAAgUTwawis1g8s9ANF2RVhZMXruwohXbw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAbpuyomorgNdjm3MAAgUTwawis1g8s9ANF2RVhZMXruwohXbw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:10218A5766CBBCA8A62D470A6C5A03884C7FE404486A8D9FB37FF5E1714FD10D; UpperCasedChecksum:CFA4037CFAC80DE897FBE0D734F6317DCAD1DA2AA43E8AF1A847BBCE822223C1; SizeAsReceived:7419; Count:46
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [aJFqpqegE5CtQ1SsGfse0FVaJtQ++6T3]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SG2APC01HT102; 7: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
x-incomingheadercount: 46
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:SG2APC01HT102; H:HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: afdcac07-69cf-4e99-ca36-08d4bc72e52a
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(300000503095)(300135400095)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322274)(1601125374)(1603101448)(1701031045)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095); SRVR:SG2APC01HT102;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SG2APC01HT102:
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(444000031); SRVR:SG2APC01HT102; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:SG2APC01HT102;
x-forefront-prvs: 0350D7A55D
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HK2PR0401MB1588257A93D04368D9CC18EAB5DF0HK2PR0401MB1588_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jun 2017 09:08:22.8788 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2APC01HT102
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/VscJ17tBwkxiVGPbaN8JYJgDcbI>
Subject: Re: [alto] Some considerations about path vector design
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: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:08:32 -0000

Hi Jensen and all,
Sorry for the late reply. Please see my comments inline.
On 7 Jun 2017, at 4:52 PM, Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com<mailto:jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

I am going to resume the discussion about graph representation and path vector. After some attempts to adopt the path-vector extension, I have the following considerations:

1. The current design is inefficient. Since IETF 98, we have agreed on the design of a two-stage protocol extension (path-vector cost map + unified property map) for graph representation. It is extensible enough because we can customize the element (ane) properties. But the two-stage protocol will conduct the long delay and increase the complexity of state maintenance.

2. The resource dependencies are not clear. The "Dependent Resources" attribute in ALTO protocol is defined to claim the one-way resource dependencies. But many resource dependencies should be bidirectional. e.g. In path vector design, the cost map and the corresponding property map are bound to the same query.

For 1, my personal idea is to deliver a service to accept a sequence of queries. In this way, the client can query both cost map and property map in a single request. And the server will handle the two-stage protocol efficiently.

Here is a rough example:

request:
- resource: /alto/pv-costmap
  pids:
  - srcs: [xxx]
  - dsts: [yyy]
- resource: /alto/ane-prop-map
  query-id: $resource[0].$response.meta.queryId
  entities: $resource[0].$response.costmap.values.reduce(
            (x,y) => x.values.concat(y.values))
This design idea is a one-step service to get the cost map response and the property map response together in one request, which means it will return all the abstract network elements generated by one query. The effect of this design is probably same as the inline-mode that will directly return the properties of anes in the cost map, right?

For 2, I have not found a good solution to handle the generic case.

Looking forward to any feedback.

Best regards,
Jensen