Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO
Wendy Roome <wendy@wdroome.com> Wed, 25 March 2015 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <wendy@wdroome.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534881AD09C for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 ZqbNPzlmsTMu for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from itihasa.pair.com (itihasa.pair.com [209.68.5.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B550E1AD0C7 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.111.111.119] (unknown [173.200.48.34]) by itihasa.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B1CDF7502; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:02:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wendy Roome <wendy@wdroome.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <20B55DE3-5F93-4D5E-B693-684AF4A372A9@wdroome.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:02:02 -0500
To: Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D257)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/uUTe98s0LnK9IdZ5vciWS5nrhYw>
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>, Piotr Wydrych <piotr.wydrych@agh.edu.pl>
Subject: Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:02:34 -0000
After reviewing the 2.* alternatives more carefully, I think 2.1 & 2.2 are not practical. First, they only work for Endpoint Cost queries; since the pid maps vary from server to sever, 2.1 & 2.2 won't work for anything else. Second, the analogy with DNS breaks down. With DNS, everyone has the same address for a name; you just have to find the first server that has it. With alto, every server has a cost. You need to decide which is most accurate. Right now there is no way to determine that. That leaves 2.3, which pushes the problem to the client. That requires a central alto server registry, plus a way for a server to declare its area of cost expertise. As for incentives for an alto provider to register their server with some central repository, I don't see that as a problem. If an ISP offers alto, they want people to use it. So they will want to promote their alto server. Just like someone with a public web site wants google to know about it. The more important question is, what are the incentives for an ISP to offer an alto server in the first place? :-) - Wendy > On Mar 25, 2015, at 6:23, Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de> wrote: > > Hi Wendy, > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 05:22:55PM -0500, Wendy Roome wrote: >> 2.4 is fine when the client wants costs to or from the client. But it >> will not work well for a p2p tracker, which wants costs between >> arbitrary endpoints, even if they are all on the other side of the >> planet. > > Why do you think that this will not work well? The tracker will have > to contact a large number of ALTO servers and assemble a virtual map > based on the snippets it can get from these ALTO servers. > This is basically shifting the aggregation problem from server side > to client side. > > approach 2.4 is analyzed in more detail in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kiesel-alto-xdom-disc-00 > > In addition to issues like overhead and caching efficiency, another > aspect might be legal liability. Being an access network operator in > Europe, I am a bit reluctant to publish costs from, say, an access > network in Japan to an access network in the US through my ALTO server. > This is not only a question of map size and processing load on my > server. What happens if I wreck some other network operator's traffic > engineering or business model by giving wrong cost information or by > redirecting to the wrong ALTO server? That's why I would prefer > approaches 2.3 or 2.4. (This paragraph is about an "open Internet" use > case). > >> For that, you want 2.2 or 2.3. The problem with those is how do you know which alto server to use? > > 2.1 and 2.2 is basically the same problem. All ALTO servers need to > know which other ALTO servers are authoritative for which parts of the > map. They need a protocol to exchange this authority information. > Whether they fetch the data from there on behalf of the client, > or whether they tell the client "go fetch it from there on your own" > is mostly a question of caching efficiency. > > 2.3 is "why not just use your favorite web search engine to find the > right ALTO server?" - although I have some doubts regarding the incentives > for the operators of such search engines for indexing ALTO servers. > >> One possibility is to attach an "I have authoritative vista for this >> set of endpoints" attribute to network maps. Then (given a master list >> of alto servers) a tracker can select the alto server that is best for >> the tracker's client. > > This sounds similar to draft-kiesel-alto-alto4alto. > The question is: how would the operator of a network with his ALTO > server join the authority map? We would have to establish an > administration office where the can register (possibly IANA?). > In contrast, the xdom-disc draft tries to re-use DNS as an already > established rendez-vous point, so no new administration would have > to be created. > > > Sebastian > >>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:39, Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> Hi Richard, >>> all, >>> >>> first of all do you have any specific multi-domain ("partitioned") use >>> case in mind? Our original P2P use case certainly was, but it has become >>> quiet around it. For the newer use cases such as CDN or VPN optimization >>> or stuff related to SDN im am not so sure whether we need that. >>> >>> I remember that many years ago we had detailed discussions how the >>> partitioned-knowledge-problem could be solved. We had several approaches: >>> >>> >>> 1. all ALTO servers have the same knowledge >>> >>> 1.1. ensure synchronization in the provisioning protocol (cf. >>> RFC 5693, Fig 1), which is currently not standardized >>> >>> 1.2. standardize an inter-ALTO-server data replication protocol >>> >>> >>> 2. different ALTO servers operated by different organizations (e.g. >>> ISPs) do NOT have the same (global) knowledge >>> >>> 2.1 ALTO clients can connect to any server and that first server >>> will fetch the data (similar to an iterative DNS query) on behalf >>> of the client, based on some kind of inter-ALTO-server >>> request forwarding protocol >>> >>> 2.2 ALTO clients can connect to any server and that first server >>> will redirect the client to the "right" ALTO server that has the >>> desired information, based on some kind of inter-ALTO-server >>> authority information exchange protocol >>> >>> 2.3 ALTO clients need to use some kind of "search engine" that >>> indexes ALTO servers and redirects and/or gives cached results >>> >>> 2.4 ALTO clients need to use an external discovery mechanism (e.g. >>> based on a DHT or on DNS) to discover the ALTO server that has >>> the desired information >>> >>> >>> >>> My opinion is that for a small scenario with only a rather limited >>> number of federated domains, approach 1.1 should be sufficient. No >>> need to standardize anything here. >>> For a true Internet-scale scenario (e.g., the P2P use case), I do not >>> like the 1.? approaches, and I think that 2.4 is more realistic, for >>> reasons that I already outlined in this post: >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg02547.html >>> >>> One possible solution that follows the 2.4 approach is the xdom-disc >>> draft (currently expired, I'm working on a new version). >>> >>> Thanks >>> Sebastian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> alto mailing list >>> alto@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
- [alto] Inter-ALTO Piotr Wydrych
- [alto] Inter-ALTO Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Sebastian Kiesel
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Wendy Roome
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Sebastian Kiesel
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Wendy Roome
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Sebastian Kiesel
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Piotr Wydrych
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Wendy Roome
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Piotr Wydrych
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Wendy Roome
- Re: [alto] Inter-ALTO Piotr Wydrych