[alto] ALTO Topology Use Cases
Greg Bernstein <gregb@grotto-networking.com> Wed, 27 July 2016 17:15 UTC
Return-Path: <gregb@grotto-networking.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 2415712D11A for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 loc4bPlWIA6a for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.webfaction.com (mail6.webfaction.com [74.55.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D19E12D0FD for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.134] (unknown [24.6.106.73]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB382101544 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:15:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
From: Greg Bernstein <gregb@grotto-networking.com>
Message-ID: <e90b560c-9854-16dd-ff50-70e0062ffab1@grotto-networking.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:15:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8FB0C21F416B7A1AEEC02790"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/wMSpni_TBhbUWt9c8KZbs3ikzJ4>
Subject: [alto] ALTO Topology Use Cases
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:15:59 -0000
Hi fellow ALTOers. It seems appropriate to revisit the ALTO topology use cases in a systematic fashion as it seemed the last time we did this was in 2012. In the following I focus on bandwidth considerations, since these can introduce mutual constraints among flows and were the original motivation for our ALTO topology work. It seems useful to introduce the concepts of “source-destination” /choice/ made by the client and of “path” /choice/ which may or may not be supported by the network to help discern various use cases. Let me know if this breakdown is helpful. At the end I give a quick review/summary of the “path” and “graph” representations. Cheers Greg B. ALTO Topology Use Cases 1. Single or Multiple Paths between a given Source and Destination 1. Underlying technology only supports single path at a time between source and destination. For example IP, single spanning tree ethernet bridging. 2. Underlying network supports multiple paths between source and destination. For example MPLS, GMPLS, SDN. 1. Provider offers /path choice/ as a service. This is a form of /network virtualization/. Emerging SDN scenario. 2. Numbers and Choices of Sources and Destinations 1. Single source and Single destination Bandwidth between source and destination is a well defined notion. If network supports path choice then either “path-vector” or “graph” representation can be used mutual bandwidth constraint information isn’t needed since we only have one flow. 2. Single source and Multiple destinations simultaneously Bandwidth between a single source and multiple destinations is not well defined since we can have shared bottlenecks between paths. Knowing this information in the case with no path choice maybe useful for adjusting sending rates. If given path choice one can optimize chosen paths. 3. Single source, choice of one or more destinations out of a larger pool of destinations. This is almost a classic ALTO scenario with additional bandwidth information. Does not require mutual constraint information since only one flow. In path choice case multiple paths could allow for delay vs. bandwidth or other trade offs. 4. Multiple sources and Multiple destinations simultaneously Like cases 1. and 2. for no path choice. But with path choice mutual bandwidth constraints are important for optimization. 5. Choices of multiple source-destination pairs from a pool of possible sources and destinations. Even with no path choice mutual bandwidth information is key to the selection of optimum source-destination pairs. In case with path-choice we may prefer “graph” representation over “path-vector” which may need to furnish an abundance of possible paths. 3. Choice of Bandwidth Constraint Representation 1. “Path-Vector”: here we represent a path between a source and destination in terms of a list of “abstract” links. We associate bandwidth constraints with this abstract links so that the ALTO client can understand the mutual bandwidth constraints between paths. In networks where path choice is supported one may need give a large number of paths between a given source and destination to support good optimization. Note that our use of the term “path-vector” is particular to ALTO topology discussions. 2. “Graph”: Here we present an “abstraction” of the network in terms of nodes and links. With the links having capacity constraints. Client would obtain paths based on criteria furnished from the network (no path choice) or its own criteria (path choice). In the case of path choice the network would be responsible for taking a path request and realizing it (network virtualization implementation). 3. If multiple choices how well does provider understand clients application? If very well (or network simple) then lists of possible paths with mutual constraints (“path vector”) can be sufficient if not very well or the network is very meshy then a graph representation is better.
- [alto] ALTO Topology Use Cases Greg Bernstein