Re: [alto] Comments on the Path-Vector draft during IETF 102

Danny Alex Lachos Perez <> Tue, 21 August 2018 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E73130E60 for <>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T-4iuaxlTALE for <>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E618130E78 for <>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k21-v6so9048996pff.11 for <>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X/w3nJ4YxVCGf4PA8R03keKZs6FQ8xJ+bi0zVD/5AJQ=; b=axr0j8H5XCUgBktUN58+cgwv3/XczpnaWm1iXrWsX+cGrwnipra3KnzXI3amwezQA0 5+3C8j2+uFt1dlQ+HLJ6vmxkjktEnSexWPsbf2cPgZSL3q/WANM9AeAH3x8JceLYCHaj JBuCFwXO99P8CxCh4RI5OEmpQO1V14G9Ij7RlOjQI2+Mb07gE2T5DqbcZ14j9m4dlQeh F74jWPDlClktKACdkV+TxhsYkmGiX4jxpGw/F60vCDfs6tFr2fZ23W+eh6P11oSuayeB qcE81NxinDqUeL8RwuoOh42YAaUTgZLhf1ZltHh5uYX13PQwXu1WnmcIfVw5QSk3zgcS uS2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X/w3nJ4YxVCGf4PA8R03keKZs6FQ8xJ+bi0zVD/5AJQ=; b=abtTkM3JW6a6toWkRLaEm8Pjlc4VMF3vlBi5wU6COPgn0/wtDAnQWCyxQBVbpLzK2D 1vl1rtjf9RKjKMqJS9ZekKOHPkpwM0UuOtavAN091Boq8FulyuwY86wCFIn1i/TzTLeF KCvH06DBoxLA1HtOh1+JSFgr4NMSKHXKYfZfsO+t5nNWpcfhrLzB7ZfN17nbc6rrpXef 4QCENqAyEcbSicpWdYvepnT9oHUOMdA1CJtyBqbnpxXLHgcQG+dnyDL3yn0nMFcvDjvA NiZMNzr4wSl7p5heimvjqxod0yLyDo7VD3VSvdRfysD6IgWi/uPLj0z1lzZNejk0Lin8 CWtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEkEWukiMa5LkwWyNVETokvwjEznYZ7LXcM65WjLEwDSnblb+qn UMpWg2Llo7VNnBP22bMemCHQh0ZOWOD6FLp1JpzZtQ26
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxFt3cnosClC9kPEExvHEU7tMubxHhkHbszaDavRKQMjY+2TSQ7RwL2x0GgCLi7rUWFBRJRChglsc/vjYqjPRU=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:ef4f:: with SMTP id c15-v6mr18690200pgk.368.1534883922746; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Danny Alex Lachos Perez <>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 17:38:31 -0300
Message-ID: <>
To: Qiao Xiang <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fca2b30573f802d0"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] Comments on the Path-Vector draft during IETF 102
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 21 Aug 2018 20:38:47 -0000

Hello Qiao,

See inline a quick comment about the AS-level path information at the
Broker-assisted architecture

In Danny's multi-domain broker draft tries to use the PV extension to
> provide the AS-path information for different NFs. This may be a strong
> case to use the array of ANEs, instead of a set of ANEs, in the PV draft.
> However, such information is already provided by BGP and will be the source
> of an ALTO server getting such information, why is ALTO better than BGP at
> providing such information?
In multi-domain SFC/NFV scenarios, besides the AS-level topology (provided
by BGP, for instance) information, the provision of a complete E2E network
service needs resource (storage, storage, memory), network (bandwidth,
delay)  and services (Virtual/physical Network Functions) information. The
current SG object proposed on the Broker-assisted draft is focused purely
on AS-level connectivity information between entities (e.g., SAP->NF,
NF->NF, etc.), following an ordered flow. However, the SG object is
conceived to support (extension or potential new ALTO service) additional
information (e.g., resource, network, service). This means the connectivity
information will be computed considering also such additional parameters.

Best regards,

Danny Lachos

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 5:49 PM Qiao Xiang <>; wrote:

> Dear authors of the PV draft and the ALTO WG members,
> Before and during IETF 102, I raised a couple of issues about the path
> vector draft: (1) why we use a vector of abstract network element (ANE)?
> and (2) update the current PV design to support multicast/multicast. It was
> suggested during IETF 102 that we move this discussion to the mailing list.
> Hence the following are my opinions in detail:
> *1. The design choice of using "array/sequence/list of abstract network
> elements (ANEs)".*
> We all know that the concept "path vector" in this draft was highly
> motivated by BGP, a path-vector interdomain routing protocol. In BGP, a
> path vector encodes an AS path, which provides the semantics that to reach
> a destination IP prefix, which ASes will be traversed in what "order". The
> AS-path vector has semantics: (1) the first one in the vector is the
> neighbor AS providing this route, (2) the last one is the destination AS
> providing the destination IP prefix, (3) The ASes in between help provide
> information about inter-AS connectivity. In contrast, a path vector in ALTO
> is an ANE-path. What semantics does it have? In order words, why does the
> order of ANEs matter? One may argue that it may help provide information
> like "a flow will pass through a firewall middlebox before entering a DPI
> middlebox", but why would a network operator want to provide such detailed
> private information to the application? Is there a strong, reasonable use
> case?
> In Danny's multi-domain broker draft tries to use the PV extension to
> provide the AS-path information for different NFs. This may be a strong
> case to use the array of ANEs, instead of a set of ANEs, in the PV draft.
> However, such information is already provided by BGP and will be the source
> of an ALTO server getting such information, why is ALTO better than BGP at
> providing such information?
> I see 3 ways that we can proceed:
> (1) we keep the current design, and provide strong use cases in the draft
> to justify "array of ANEs" is necessary, and explicitly state that the
> application MUST recognize that the returned array of ANEs MAY be
> unordered;
> (2) we keep the current design, do not provide strong use cases to justify
> this design, but explicitly state that the server MAY return the array of
> ANEs unordered;
> (3) we change the design from "array of ANEs" to "set of ANEs" (i.e., cost
> mode changed from "array" to "set"). Given that all specifications in ALTO
> are specified using JSON format, which does not have a concept called
> "set", this design choice may seem a bit strange. However, I believe that
> we should not let the specification language used by the WG affect the
> semantics of the design.
> *2. Handling multipath (and potentially multicast).*
> The current PV design does not handle multipath routing or multicast. Per
> suggestion from Richard, I took a look at how BGP handles multipath, given
> that PV was highly motivated by BGP. I found RFC7911 ("Advertisement of
> Multiple Paths in BGP") provides the solution. And the basic idea is very
> simple: in BGP announcement, assigning an ID (path identifier) to the
> route. This motivates me to propose the following design to let the PV
> extension support multipath.
> Consider a source-destination pair (a flow), its route (no matter
> single-path route or multipath route) is essentially a set of route
> segments. When the ALTO client submits a PV query about this flow to the
> ALTO server. Instead of returning an array of ANEs, the ALO server returns
> a set of arrays of ANEs, where each array represents a route segment in the
> route of this flow and is assigned a unique ID. These IDs are also sent to
> the ALTO client. In addition to the property map of all ANEs used in these
> route segments, the ALTO server also sends another property map of all
> route segments, where the property is "traffic load percentage".
> I intended to talk about this design during the IETF 102 meeting, however,
> given my unstable internet connection, I had to omit this part. Slide 4-6
> in the attached presentation illustrates this design with an example. I
> believe this design perfectly provides accurate, compact information of
> resource sharing in multipath routing. It can also handle the resource
> sharing defined by TE policies, and can potentially provide such
> information in multicast, provided that the query format supports a query
> on multicast flow.
> What do you think about these two issues? It would be great to hear the
> opinion from not only the authors, but also other WG members. If they are
> reasonable to most of you, may I suggest integrating them into the next
> version of the PV draft? Thank you very much.
> Best wishes
> Qiao Xiang
> --
> Qiao Xiang
> Postdoctoral Fellow,
> Department of Computer Science,
> Yale University
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list