Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
"Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com> Fri, 10 October 2008 04:28 UTC
Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7673A67EC; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB4B3A67EC for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rR-Uz5QCJvpd for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D50E3A6359 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c49so197364wra.17 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=36HJb4ph/DZaT/I1qn8eAOZ/Q2FbjuwocLJnde3r7Mw=; b=dnTfVJfT1h96JWpFlotO1ex3WECAQGD5QN2kOo4cMJd3ewM2WF6xo9V2iLU9lO+9xb dQoRGiFMIwr7jf5NDC3T2rIW+rcLLngDBMgom5vXHyGkCg+6BDKkquje0dr6Lczyu2my WJt+3wwB7eT2agYb4JAwtboGRUB1WOfgxl8bA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=dY8X9cQRLH/8TP/c/l1ZWG7QRbMq8HM8SweRhgMOG982cgbizzesGd0TT+Tx1OD2fv xAU2ZkqG74G+/jqUJmK28xm/YafVfWWZG1mQhHRb/odiLLMsK0G8532390sy7W1bmKwC QzG64S3ovEBbAhfvcKr6bnmiq42RF5t8g6OCM=
Received: by 10.90.101.17 with SMTP id y17mr1055797agb.108.1223612947804; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.26.11 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f7c7d76e0810092129p120cf75cra1c1d3d02c23bf00@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:29:07 +0900
From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <48EEB19C.4000303@bbn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20081006203532.B1D673A68AF@core3.amsl.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276373BA@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <48EEB19C.4000303@bbn.com>
Cc: "p2pi@ietf.org" <p2pi@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1428086272=="
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
I also agree to move it forward. One example: ALTO issue is quickly coming up in the IPTV business. P2P for IPTV service already takes place in some of standard bodies (e.g., DVB, EBU, etc...). So, it's a good timing not to missing over the important business changes... -- Daniel Park [at] Samsung Electronics Standard Architect, blog.naver.com/natpt On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: > On the contrary, I perceived pretty strong agreement at the BoF that the > ALTO problem, as expressed in the documents and presentations, as an > important one to solve. There was some disagreement about solutions, but > there seemed to be agreement about the general idea that it would be useful > to create an ALTO service that could help peers optimize their peer > selection. > > The question of "service" versus "server" in the text is a complete > non-issue, purely a matter of wording. In all of the "ALTO service" > scenarios Vidya describes, there is ultimately a single host that provides > ALTO information, which you might as well call an "ALTO server". > > Since it addresses an important problem, and a problem that many people > agree is important, I support moving forward with this work. > > --Richard > > > > Narayanan, Vidya wrote: > >> I am surprised to see that ALTO is being proposed for a WG after the last >> BoF concluded with no consensus whatsoever. I think a second BoF is more >> appropriate than a WG on the topic at this time. That said, I do see the >> need for this work, although I have some comments on the current direction. >> >> Overall, I think we should work with the notion of an ALTO "service" >> rather than specifically an ALTO "server". The ALTO service may be provided >> by a server, a cluster of distributed servers or as a service in an overlay. >> Although some of the charter wording talks about a "service" rather than a >> "server", there is enough mention of a "server" entity to imply a strict >> client-server protocol. >> >> As part of that, I think there are a couple of key things that need to be >> addressed here: >> >> - A protocol that allows peers (or ALTO clients) to publish information >> about themselves as part of the ALTO service. An example of such >> information may be the uplink/downlink bandwidth of the peer. >> >> - The ability to register information types with IANA and extend these. >> The request/response protocol should be a generic enough container for any >> information that peers can provide and look for, plus what may be available >> from service providers, etc. There may be some guidelines on how such >> information types can be registered and we may start with default ones. >> >> Some further comments/questions inline. >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IESG Secretary >>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:36 PM >>> To: IETF Announcement list >>> Cc: p2pi@ietf.org >>> Subject: WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto) >>> >>> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the >>> Applications Area. The IESG has not made any determination >>> as yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is >>> provided for informational purposes only. Please send your >>> comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Monday, >>> October 13, 2008. >>> >>> Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto) >>> ============================================= >>> Last Modified: 2008-09-29 >>> >>> Current Status: Proposed Working Group >>> >>> Chair(s): TBD >>> >>> Applications Area Director(s): >>> >>> Lisa Dusseault (lisa at osafoundation.org) Chris Newman >>> (Chris.Newman at sun.com) >>> >>> Applications Area Advisor: >>> >>> Lisa Dusseault (lisa at osafoundation.org) >>> >>> Mailing List: >>> >>> General Discussion: p2pi at ietf.org >>> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi >>> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi/ >>> >>> Description of Working Group: >>> >>> A significant part of the Internet traffic today is generated >>> by peer-to-peer (P2P) applications used for file sharing, >>> real-time communications, and live media streaming. P2P >>> applications exchange large amounts of data, often uploading >>> as much as downloading. In contrast to client/server >>> architectures, P2P applications often have a selection of >>> peers and must choose. >>> >>> One of the advantages of P2P systems comes from redundancy in >>> resource availability. This requires choosing among download >>> locations, yet applications have at best incomplete >>> information about the topology of the network. Applications >>> can sometimes make empirical measurements of link >>> performance, but even when this is an option it takes time. >>> The application cannot always start out with an optimal >>> arrangement of peers, thus causing at least temporary reduced >>> performance and excessive cross-domain traffic. Providing >>> more information for use in peer selection can improve P2P >>> performance and lower ISP costs. >>> >>> The Working Group will design and specify an >>> Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) service that >>> will provide applications with information to perform >>> better-than-random initial peer selection. >>> ALTO services may take different approaches at balancing >>> factors including maximum bandwidth, minimum cross-domain >>> traffic, lowest cost to the user, etc. The WG will consider >>> the needs of BitTorrent, tracker-less P2P, and other >>> applications, such as content delivery networks (CDN) and >>> mirror selection. >>> >>> >> What does the above sentence mean? If we are putting such a list together, >> we must also take into account needs from structured P2P overlays such as >> those being specified in P2PSIP. >> >> The WG will focus on the following items: >>> >>> - A "problem statement" document providing a description of the >>> problem and a common terminology. >>> >>> - A requirements document. This document will list >>> requirements for the ALTO service, identifying, for example, >>> what kind of information P2P applications will need for >>> optimizing their choices. >>> >>> - A request/response protocol for querying the ALTO service >>> to obtain information useful for peer selection, and a format >>> for requests and >>> responses. The WG does not require intermediaries between the ALTO >>> server and the peer querying it. If the requirements >>> analysis identifies the need to allow clients to delegate >>> third-parties to query the ALTO service on their behalf, the >>> WG will ensure that the protocol provides a mechanism to >>> assert the consent of the delegating client. >>> >>> >> Is this meant to allow for entities such as proxies to be in the path? >> >> - A document defining core request and response formats and >>> semantics to communicate network preferences to applications. >>> Since ALTO services may be run by entities with different >>> level of knowledge about the underlying network, such >>> preferences may have different representations. Initially the >>> WG will consider: IP ranges to prefer and to avoid, ranked >>> lists of the peers requested by the client, information about >>> topological proximity and approximate geographic locations. >>> Other usages will be considered as extensions to the charter >>> once the work for the initial services has been completed. >>> >>> >> Earlier, it is mentioned that the requirements document will determine the >> types of information that are useful for P2P applications. Given that, it >> seems premature to conclude that the WG should consider the above mentioned >> parameters. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I think it is essential to keep >> the protocol and message formats extensible and allow for exchange of any >> registered information type. >> >> Another question I have is about the assumptions around expected peer >> addressing models. Some of the above seems to hint at IP addresses - is >> this an assumption already? >> >> - In order to query the ALTO server, clients must first know >>> one or more ALTO servers that might provide useful >>> information. The WG will look at service discovery >>> mechanisms that are in use, or defined elsewhere (e.g. >>> based on DNS SRV records or DHCP options). If such discovery >>> mechanisms can be reused, the WG will produce a document to >>> specify how they may be adopted for locating such servers. >>> However, a new, general-purpose service discovery mechanism >>> is not in scope. >>> >>> >> Alternately, the clients may look for ALTO services within an overlay. >> This can be modeled as service discovery within the overlay - I'm, however, >> not suggesting that we take on solutions for that. >> >> When the WG considers standardizing information that the ALTO >>> server could provide, the following criteria are important to >>> ensure real feasibility. >>> >>> - Can the ALTO service technically provide that information? >>> - Is the ALTO service willing to obtain and divulge that information? >>> - Is it information that a client will find useful? >>> >> >> I'm not sure how useful it is for us to answer this question. The >> protocol we develop simply needs to be a container for any information that >> has a registered type and fits a certain format. >> >> - Can a client get that information without excessive privacy concerns >>> (e.g. by sending large lists of peers)? >>> - Is it information that a client cannot find easily some other way? >>> >>> After these criteria are met, the generality of the data will >>> be considered for prioritizing standardization work, for >>> example the number of operators and clients that are likely >>> to be able to provide or use that particular data. >>> >> >> If we can build an extensible protocol, we don't need to define all >> possible kinds of information that get carried in it. >> >> In any >>> case, this WG will not propose standards on how congestion is >>> signaled, remediated, or avoided, and will not deal with >>> information representing instantaneous network state. >>> Such issues belong to other IETF areas and will be treated >>> accordingly by the specific area. >>> >>> This WG will focus solely on the communication protocol >>> between applications and ALTO servers. Note that ALTO >>> services may be useful in client-server environments as well >>> as P2P environments, although P2P environments are the first >>> focus. If, in the future, the IETF considers changes to >>> other protocols for actually implementing ALTO servers (e.g. >>> application-layer protocols for Internet coordinate systems, >>> routing protocol extensions for ISP-based solutions), such >>> work will be done in strict coordination with the appropriate WGs. >>> >>> >> I hope we can also look at the above from a generalized service >> perspective rather than just a client-server perspective. >> >> Thanks, >> Vidya >> >> Issues related to the content exchanged in P2P systems are >>> also excluded from the WG's scope, as is the issue dealing >>> with enforcing the legality of the content. >>> >>> Goals and Milestones (very tentative dates): >>> >>> Apr 2009: Working Group Last Call for problem statement Jun >>> 2009: Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational Aug >>> 2009: Working Group Last Call for requirements document Oct >>> 2009: Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational >>> Jan 2010: Working Group Last Call for request/response >>> protocol Jan 2010: Working Group Last Call for usage document >>> for communicating network preferences Mar 2010: Submit >>> request/response protocol to IESG as Proposed Standard Mar >>> 2010: Submit usage document to IESG as Proposed Standard May >>> 2010: Working Group Last Call of discovery mechanism Jul >>> 2010: Submit discovery mechanism to IESG as Proposed Standard >>> Aug 2010: Dissolve or re-charter >>> >>> Initial Drafts for Consideration >>> - draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement-02 -- >>> Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement >>> - draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-00 -- Application-Layer Traffic Optimization >>> (ALTO) Requirements >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IETF-Announce mailing list >>> IETF-Announce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> _______________________________________________ > p2pi mailing list > p2pi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi >
_______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optim… IESG Secretary
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Sam Hartman
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Richard Barnes
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Daniel Park
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Philip Levis
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Bruce Davie
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Jan Seedorf
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Jan Seedorf
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Song Haibin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Ye WANG
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Philip Levis
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Song Haibin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Das, Saumitra
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… toby.moncaster
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Karl Auerbach
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Pekka Savola
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Das, Saumitra
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Stanislav Shalunov
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Michael J. Freedman
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Dean Anderson
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Yu-Shun Wang
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Yu-Shun Wang