[altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00
David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Thu, 23 February 2012 16:09 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: altoext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: altoext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A9321F85A0 for <altoext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:09:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.123, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NQySt6rd9gIV for <altoext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED18C21F8750 for <altoext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.72]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dRzj1i0041ZXKqc5FU9qsl; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:09:50 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([71.233.85.150]) by omta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id dU9j1i00F3Ecudz3hU9ofv; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:09:50 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:09:40 -0500
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: alto@ietf.org, altoext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CB6BCEF4.14D7E%ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Thread-Topic: draft-marocco-alto-next-00
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3412840189_27381811"
Subject: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00
X-BeenThere: altoext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non-WG list for discussions related to ALTO Protocol Extensions <altoext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/altoext>, <mailto:altoext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/altoext>
List-Post: <mailto:altoext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:altoext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/altoext>, <mailto:altoext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:09:58 -0000
Hi, AD-hat-off I am not very convinced this is a set of problems that need ALTO solutions. When dealing with P2P scenarios, ALTO is important because endpoints for a large amount of P2P are "unmanaged" - they are typically home users sharing files with other home users. Home users typically do not use/monitor protocols such as BGP, ISIS, SNMP, Conex, ECN. Frequently consumer equipment doesn't make these protocols available/accessible to end-users. The information about the network, like server load, link status, bandwidth availability, is not something the network providers necessarily want to share. Network operators should be concerned about sharing with anonymous users, who might well be interested in maliciously attacking the network environment. Data centers and CDNs typically are "managed" environments, and the file-sharing/load-balancing/congestion control protocols are for use within the administrative domain by the operators of the data centers or CDNs (or between "peered" environments, where there is a certain level of trust). These environments typically have access to protocols such as SNMP and BGP, and how the network is "tweaked" to accommodate dynamic traffics patterns is the business of the network provider, using specialty applications to adapt the network at the lower layers. Operators and their OAM protocols monitor traffic load and can set policies to balance the load/adjust the forwarding rules as needed to compensate for congestion, and so on. Applications running on end-hosts do not have enough knowledge of the complete network traffic, and are in a bad position to make policy decisions about load balancing across servers based on bandwidth availability or server load or memory usage. I understand that there is a need for communications between layer 7 applications and the underlying layer 4,3,and 2 functionality.There are already protocols available that allow applications to inform the lower layers of the network what type of traffic they plan to introduce to the network, and the qualities of the service they prefer for their traffic. Applications can already make use of some of the existing standards for this purpose. Users probably do not have authorization to affect the policy; they can request QoS within the policies configured by the network operators. I do not see why, with few exceptions, the layer 7 application is better positioned to be the policy decision point, especially for real-time adjustments, than the OAM functionality already built into those lower layers, and the network provider policy configurations. I also think that real-time adjustments by ALTO don't seem called for, so a push model for fast dynamic updates really isn't needed. If needed, existing push protocols such as SNMP notifications, driven by an ALTO-SERVER-MIB, could serve this purpose just fine. I have a concern about server-to-server sharing of information. I think the network provider can decide which servers to share information with. If server-to-server sharing eliminates the network provider from the decision of whom to share data with, I consider that a problem. You, of course, do not discuss how sharing would be done in this document, so maybe that issue could be addressed. Some of these ideas, such as server-to-server communications, might be covered by a re-charter for the WG. However, developing a brand-new protocol just for this purpose seems dubious when there are so many existing protocols that can carry data between applications (which is what an alto server is). I would expect that a better approach might be to have a server and client co-resident, and using a (server-as-client)-to-server communications. I think you might have a hard time convincing the IESG to approve ALTO extensions for data centers and CDNs that could already be handled by other protocols in a managed environment. My $.02 -- David Harrington
- [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 David Harrington
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 Enrico Marocco
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 -- High … Greg Bernstein
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 Songhaibin
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 Jan Seedorf
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 Songhaibin
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 -- High … Jan Seedorf
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 -- High … Greg Bernstein
- Re: [altoext] draft-marocco-alto-next-00 -- High … Jan Seedorf