Re: [alto] About draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-00

"Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.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 102DA1289B0 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:25:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 FFm78azCI4s0 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99A54128B44 for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id BD9E9CA549B78; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:25:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id v1S8PUHP023615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:25:32 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v1S8PK2K005773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:25:28 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.59]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:24:41 +0100
From: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>
To: 陈 诗蔚 <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com>, "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: About draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-00
Thread-Index: AQHSkDLSGlYLlszctUqXqtyEW3PcXqF9FtiA
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:24:41 +0000
Message-ID: <A7A5844EB93EB94AB22C2068B10AD65A017F97206E@FR711WXCHMBA01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <KL1PR0401MB13666FF0A203039F137DE0FDB5540@KL1PR0401MB1366.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <KL1PR0401MB13666FF0A203039F137DE0FDB5540@KL1PR0401MB1366.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A7A5844EB93EB94AB22C2068B10AD65A017F97206EFR711WXCHMBA0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/vVm2PTmB5KY5MaXVAktzMeuSzO0>
Subject: Re: [alto] About draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-00
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:25:37 -0000

Hello Dawn,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. Please see my answers inline.
Best regards,
Sabine


From: alto [mailto:alto-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ? ??
Sent: dimanche 26 février 2017 14:19
To: alto@ietf.org<mailto:alto@ietf.org>
Subject: [alto] About draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-00

The use cases in the draft mainly focus on the last hop connection selection(user equipment to the access network) and calendaring for unattended data.Based on the use cases, two possible solutions are mentioned using alto contextual cost values.
Solution 1: Cells in the Cellular network are regarded as PIDs. User equipment was assigned to the same PID it locates at/currently connected to. The way to distinguish whether a specific PID represents a UE(user equipment) or  a cell is that the PID in "src" stands for UE and the PID in "dst" stands for cell.

>> SR: that’s right in the “uplink” direction

Solution 2 : Cells in the Cellular network are regarded as PIDs. User equipment was assigned a new PID(named "UE" for example).
Compare the above two solutions, the drawback of Solution2 is that user equipment need to be assigned to two PIDs("UE" and the Cell PID).

 But here are some problems. I think what we desire is actually the endpoint(user equipment) to PID values.

>> SR: and also the PID-to-endpoint value

Assume now we have 2 user equipment located in/currently connected to Cell1. According to solution1, the two user equipment are both recognized as "Cell1", so, distinguishing the values between them are difficult.

>> SR: Actually, we do not necessarily want to distinguish among UEs. The main goal is to expose cost values associated to the cellular connection between UE and cell1. Typically, metrics such as RF Cost or other metrics to be defined. To address your point, we have to distinguish between the uplink and downlink direction and using the context parameters “uplink” and “downlink” is one way to do it.

If the returning values of these 2 user equipment are regarded as same, then, it is actually a PID-PID cost rather than a endpoint-PID cost.

>> SR: yes, this option 1 definitely provides PID-PID costs.

As for solution2, since there might be many user equipment, the network map can be huge. Another point is that,due to the mobility of the user equipment, the network maps must change frequently to adapt the current circumstance.

>> SR: I agree with you. Design option 2 is neither scalable nor stable and will be dropped in the next update of this draft.

Regards,
Dawn

>> SR: Thanks, Sabine


Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>