Re: [irs-discuss] About ALTO Vs. BGP-LS

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

I strongly agree that we need to start collecting the use-cases for
multiple abstraction levels as well as physical/virtual/private.

Alia
On Aug 3, 2012 4:51 PM, "Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Volker,
>
> On 8/3/12 12:02 PM, Volker Hilt wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe that the capability to provide a simplified view on the network
>> topology to an application is a key feature rather than a bug. Applications
>> that want to have a view on network topology don't need need a fine grained
>> view on the topology in most casts and benefit from having an abstracted
>> view. This will simplify processing for the application and enables
>> providers to control the exposure of details.
>>
> Agreed.
>
>  We've seen some numbers for topology data sizes in the incremental
>> updates presentation in the ALTO meeting, which provide some insights into
>> the amounts of data needed for different topology sizes.
>>
>> I like the idea of enabling an ALTO server to offer different levels of
>> details. This will enable a server to tailor responses to the specific
>> client. It will add complexity as the ALTO server itself will have to
>> maintain the most complex topology it is offering and will have to keep
>> this topology up to date. But this is an interesting question for
>> discussion in the WG.
>>
>>  Glad that you also like the idea of different levels of details of the
> network topology. If the ALTO Server is given a detailed topology
> (constructed from multiple sources, such as routing feed, LSP feed,
> configuration files), we can offer multiple topology operators/aggregators
> to explore the detailed topology, according to need and policy. A simple
> example operator is level (i.e., hierarchy such as at the area level), but
> one might specify other operators (e.g., fisheye focus). There are studies
> on representation of multi-level graphs that we can try to take advantage
> of. This can be a subject for the group to explore.
>
> We may need to study/collect use cases for multiple level topology. One
> interesting example immediately coming to mind is the Abstract Node concept
> (specify IP prefix/ASN) used in RSVP-TE.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>  Cheers,
>>
>> Volker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03.08.2012 11:03, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>> Good post! I added the ALTO mailing list, given the relevance. I hope
>>> that this is OK cross posting.
>>>
>>> First, a few comments on ALTO:
>>>
>>> View granularity:
>>>
>>> - ALTO currently defines two abstract network topology data structures:
>>> Network Map and Cost Map(s). More link-state oriented maps (graphs),
>>> with aggregations and transformations, can be added efficiently to ALTO.
>>> Some initial efforts are already on the way (e.g., see the graph
>>> representation proposal at page 9:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/**proceedings/84/slides/slides-**84-alto-1.pdf<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-alto-1.pdf>).
>>> Hence,
>>> I see a natural next-step is for ALTO to provide a link-state view to
>>> external entities.
>>>
>>> - It is a good comment on the level of details that ALTO should
>>> delivery. This is a good question for the ALTO working group and the
>>> community to discuss. I feel that ALTO should provide multi-levels of
>>> granularity of views, and we should discuss in the working group.
>>>
>>> Pull vs push delivery mechanism:
>>>
>>> - There are more discussions on adding the incremental update in ALTO.
>>> Multiple mechanisms have been discussed. I feel that it is the right
>>> direction for ALTO.
>>>
>>> Now let me understand the deployment model of BGP-LS. Your explanation
>>> on the issues of acquiring routing state is excellent. Let me start by
>>> understanding more details on the deployment model of BGP-LS inside a
>>> network:
>>>
>>> - A set N_igp of BGP-LS instances are deployed to collect IGP info. You
>>> need multiple instances because IGP needs direct connectivity
>>> (adjacency). Each instance here receives (potentially multiple) IGP
>>> updates and streams (relays) to an another (remote) entity, which I
>>> assume is a master BGP-LS instance. So each of these N_igp instances is
>>> IGP-in and BGP-LS out. This appears to be shown in Figure 1 of
>>> draft-gredler-idr-ls-**distribution.
>>>
>>> - A set N_egp of BGP-LS instances are deployed to collect BGP feeds. You
>>> also may need multiple instances because the network does not want to
>>> see aggregated states but raw states. These instances will feed to the
>>> master BGP-LS as well.
>>>
>>> - The master BGP-LS aggregates the multiple BGP-LS ins (and maybe some
>>> direct IGP/EGP ins) and pushes (after policy) to other BGP-LS peers to
>>> use: for example, an ALTO Server transforms/aggregates the feed to
>>> generate ALTO views (maps and graphs), and an PCE uses the feed to
>>> maintain its TED. One could even imagine that ALTO builds a detailed TED
>>> and feeds to PCE, but this beyond the scope of this discussion. The
>>> master BGP-LS is BGP-LS in and BGP-LS out. It is also possible that the
>>> master BGP-LS does not push to any other entities and simply maintains
>>> an internal DB for others to query.
>>>
>>> Do I understand it correctly?
>>>
>>> Now, we can take a look at more specifics of BGP-LS.
>>>
>>> A first perspective is the semantics of the content. If the objective is
>>> to solve the aforementioned deployment issue, then an alternative
>>> solution is to introduce a simple LS update tunneling protocol, where a
>>> link-state proxy forwards LS messages to a collector. The current design
>>> of BGP-LS starts with such a feeling (i.e., an NLRI starts with the
>>> Protocol ID, which indicates it is from IS-IS level 1 IS-IS level 2,
>>> OSPF, etc). However, the protocol appears to (try to) go beyond simple
>>> tunneling and introduces a common LS schema, by converting/filtering
>>> individual IGP LS messages to some common format. I feel that it can be
>>> helpful to first specify the schema (LS data model) instead of the
>>> specific encoding. For example, OSPF specifies LS Age, and this is
>>> filtered. (Please correct me if I missed it). On the other hand, one can
>>> think that some Age info can be helpful for one to understand the
>>> "freshness" of the LS. A problem studied in database is heterogeneous
>>> databases, to merge multiple data sources (IS-IS, OSPF, etc) to a single
>>> schema, and there can be many problems. If there is such a study, please
>>> do share a pointer.
>>>
>>> A second perspective is using BGP as the transport. What key features
>>> from BGP do we really need (yes, weak-typed TLV encoding offers a lot of
>>> flexibility)? What features of BGP do we not need (e.g., BGP is a
>>> routing protocol and hence builds in features to handle convergence such
>>> as dampening)? What may be missing (e.g., a capability of pull or
>>> filtering of push). I feel that these issues should be discussed. If
>>> they have already been discussed, please do share a pointer, as I am
>>> definitely a new comer.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> On 8/2/12 11:54 PM, stefano previdi wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> as co-author of both BGP-LS and ALTO drafts, I'd try to clarify a few
>>>> things:
>>>>
>>>> ALTO has been designed in order to deliver to applications (through
>>>> http/json):
>>>>
>>>> 1. two maps representing the network topology in an abstracted view
>>>> (or set of views through multiple maps). The map does not include
>>>> the details of a link-state database and therefore have little use
>>>> for any element that would need to retrieve from the network the
>>>> detailed/complete network layer topology, for example: link
>>>> addresses or link BW resources, etc. IOW: ALTO maps do not have
>>>> the granularity of a link-state database and ALTO protocol is not
>>>> designed to deliver such details.
>>>>
>>>> and/or
>>>>
>>>> 2. Ranking services where a client sends a bunch of IP addresses in
>>>> a message and the ALTO server replies by ranking these addresses
>>>> based on their topological/network distance (or whatever criteria
>>>> the ALTO server has been configured for). This is called: Endpoint
>>>> Cost Service.
>>>>
>>>> When using ALTO maps, and the ALTO protocol being http/pull based,
>>>> there's no such concept of unsolicited routing updates. An ALTO
>>>> client is typically a browser that will pull the maps from an ALTO
>>>> server using http. The ALTO server will make no effort to ensure the
>>>> client has the latest view of the topology (i.e.: It's the role of the
>>>> client to poll for new maps time to time).
>>>>
>>>> Now, in order for an ALTO server to deliver Maps or Ranking services,
>>>> it needs to build some form of topology and in order to achieve this,
>>>> it needs somehow to be fed by either the operator (configuration) or
>>>> to receive dynamically topology information from the network (e.g.:
>>>> ISIS/OSPF/BGP).
>>>>
>>>> Here we had two options:
>>>> 1. ALTO server to implement ISIS/OSPF/BGP and establish IGP adjacencies
>>>> to ABRs or L1L2 routers in each area so to retrieve the LSDB from
>>>> each area. In practice I know no SP willing/accepting to open their
>>>> IGP to an ALTO server. Also, IGP requires direct connectivity
>>>> (adjacency) so from an operation point of view is complex and not
>>>> desired.
>>>> 2. Use a database distribution protocol running on top of a reliable
>>>> transport layer that would allow an ALTO server to connect to a
>>>> _single_ and _remote_ Route Reflector (i.e.: no need to be directly
>>>> connected) and grab the whole network topology that will be updated
>>>> using standard routing protocol mechanisms (i.e.: routing updates)
>>>> and that would allow the operator to control (through policies and
>>>> filters) what to distribute and to which server.
>>>>
>>>> Benefits: single (or dual at most for redundancy) connection for
>>>> the ALTO server (rather than having a direct adjacency with each
>>>> ABR) and, from the operator perspective, single point of
>>>> distribution of network topology (easier to apply policies and
>>>> control what you deliver). This is what BGP-LS is about.
>>>>
>>>> BGP-LS defines new AFI/SAFI for a new NLRI and attributes that convey
>>>> link-state and, more generically, any type of topology information.
>>>> The draft specifies NLRI and attributes that map whatever you can
>>>> find in a link-state database.
>>>>
>>>> We currently have draft-gredler-idr-ls-**distribution in the process
>>>> (hopefully) to be adopted as WG item in IDR WG (so far we 're getting
>>>> good support). We also have 3 implementations of BGP-LS.
>>>>
>>>> Deployment-wise: BGP-LS is not yet deployed, however, we already have
>>>> deployments (I know at least two) where an ALTO server retrieves IP
>>>> prefix information from remote BGP RRs (for ipv4). The same scheme
>>>> will be used once BGP-LS will be deployed (so to say that it is not
>>>> something that we invented after a couple of beers but corresponds to
>>>> requirements for delivering network services to upper layers while
>>>> still controlling efficiently what you distribute, to whom and in
>>>> which form (note that, often, beers are anyway part of the process).
>>>>
>>>> More information here:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-gredler-idr-ls-**distribution-02<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-02>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-alto-protocol-12<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-12>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I agree that one of the top work items for this effort should be a
>>>>>> standardized topology function, and one that is accessible via a
>>>>>> non-routing protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So if the requirement is to have topology export via non-routing
>>>>> protocol then I think we should seriously revisit or repackage the
>>>>> draft-gredler-idr-ls-**distribution-01 which works for for both OSPF
>>>>> and ISIS.
>>>>>
>>>>> However before that let's really understand the requirement why it
>>>>> must be exported via non-routing protocol .... Keep in mind that just
>>>>> to parse BGP UPDATE messages and retrieve interesting pieces out it
>>>>> it requires very little code rather then full BGP implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The particular feature I like about
>>>>> draft-gredler-idr-ls-**distribution-01 is that it is read-only ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> R.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I agree that one of the top work items for this effort should be a
>>>>>> standardized topology function, and one that is accessible via a
>>>>>> non-routing protocol. While not exactly "low hanging fruit", it is
>>>>>> something that (to me) is a clear work item with clear goals that
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be tackled straight away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/2/12 3:24 PM, "James Kempf" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  So after seeing part of Alia's talk this morning (I had to leave in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> middle unfortunately), I'd like to make a couple suggestions. There
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> a lot of ideas presented in the talk, enough for an entire IETF
>>>>>>> Area. I
>>>>>>> think to make tangible progress, the work needs to be focussed on a
>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>> subset that would be of immediate interest and usability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a couple areas that suggest themselves, but one that
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> useful in work that I've been involved in is a standardized format
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> network topology representation and a protocol for exchanging it. The
>>>>>>> Onix OpenFlow controller has a network information base with a
>>>>>>> specialized format for network topology, and every OpenFlow
>>>>>>> controller
>>>>>>> requires this. Having a standardized way to represent it might
>>>>>>> foster a
>>>>>>> common topology database package. Another application is network
>>>>>>> management. Every network management system needs some kind of
>>>>>>> topology
>>>>>>> representation. Finally, though I am not an expert in PCE
>>>>>>> construction,
>>>>>>> it would seem to me that a PCE would need some kind of topology
>>>>>>> representation in order to perform path calculations. Having a
>>>>>>> way,for
>>>>>>> example, for the OpenFlow controller and the PCE to exchange topology
>>>>>>> information would be really useful. I would say to start with
>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>> topology because that is fundamental, but make the format flexible
>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>> to support
>>>>>>> virtual topology representation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jak
>>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/irs-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/irs-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/irs-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/irs-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/irs-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/irs-discuss<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>
>