Sorry, I missed one comment: Qin: I believe your case require server to server communication for end-to-end interdomain routing.
My comment: I think we used BGP to provide the e2e interdomain routing information. Best Qiao On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:57 PM Qiao Xiang <xiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Qin, > > Thank you so much for the feedback. Please see my responses inline. > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:22 PM Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Qiao for sharing your project on Unicorn and thought on >> multi-domain setting. >> >> My impression in your implementation is each domain name and first >> ingress node in such domain will be carried in the ALTO response message. >> > First, for domain name, I do not believe we need that in the ALTO response > message. Our setting here is each domain has an ALTO server, and the ALTO > clients at the aggregator have separate connections to different ALTO > servers. In this way, by maintaining a (domain, ALTO server) mapping, the > aggregator can differentiate responses from different domains. Second, for > ingress node, the client needs to specify the ingress and the (srcIP, > dstIP) pair in the query first so that the ALTO server knows what > information to return. And I should also clarify that although we use > ODL-ALTO for our system, but the path vector extension is not implemented > exactly following the specification since it was not fully stabilized then. > > @Jensen is the core developer and can comment further on this, as well as > the ODL implementation. > > >> One thing I want to highlight is >> >> Unicorn has already been deployed in several cities of USA in 2018 and >> implemented in the ODL open source. >> > I should clarify that this deployment is pre-production, and the > demonstration scenario is at SC18 and SC19, where we are at the conference > cities (Dallas and Denver), and orchestrate traffic from there back to a > Caltech LHC site (we manually separate this site into two domains to create > a 3-domain scenario for demonstration purpose.) > > >> Quote from >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiang-alto-multidomain-analytics/ >> >> “ >> >> The authors build an ALTO server on top of the OpenDaylight Software >> >> Defined Network controller. The ALTO server collects the network >> >> state information from the OpenDaylight controller, e.g., topology, >> >> policy and traffic statistics, processes the collected information >> >> into resource abstraction, and sends the abstraction back to the ALTO >> >> client at the resource orchestrator. >> >> >> >> The Unicorn framework has been deployed and >> >> demonstrated in small federation networks connecting Dallas, Texas, >> >> Los Angles, California, and Denver, Colorado at different >> >> conventions. For example, in 2018, the federation in the >> >> demonstration is composed of three member networks. Network 1 is in >> >> Dallas, Texas, and Network 2 and network 3 are in Los Angeles, >> >> California. Network 1 is connected to network 2 through a layer-2 >> >> WAN circuit with a 100 Gbps bandwidth, provisioned by several >> >> providers such as SCinet, CenturyLink and CENIC. Network 1 is a >> >> temporal science network in the CMS experiment, while network 2 and 3 >> >> are long-running CMS Tier-2 sites. >> >> ” >> >> I believe your case require server to server communication for end-to-end >> interdomain routing. >> >> >> >> Secondly, as for network information exposure in multi-domain setting, I >> think >> >> 1. 3GPP Network Exposure Function is a good example for network >> information exposure, but it is part of 5G core which enables data exchange >> between UE and application server and does not extend to other domain. >> >> 2. ZSM multi-domain network and service management can be another >> concrete example for multiple domain network information exposure which can >> be used to have a quick >> >> response to network anomaly or reroute the traffic to the less congested >> path [ >> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/ZSM/001_099/002/01.01.01_60/gs_ZSM002v010101p.pdf >> ]. >> >> 3. PCE has similar design for multi-domain setting, which allows PCE to >> PCE communication. >> >> >> Thank you again for the pointers. I'll take a look at ZSM and PCE soon. > > > Best > Qiao > > >> -Qin >> >> *发件人:* Qiao Xiang [mailto:xiang...@gmail.com] >> *发送时间:* 2021年3月3日 0:18 >> *收件人:* 刘鹏 <liupeng...@chinamobile.com> >> *抄送:* Y. Richard Yang <y...@cs.yale.edu>; IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>; Qin >> Wu <bill...@huawei.com> >> *主题:* Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review >> >> >> >> Hi Peng, Qin and Richard, >> >> >> >> Very good discussion! Richard and I have been working with folks from CMS >> and ESNet (a large global multi-domain science network) to design network >> information exposure abstractions and mechanisms in multi-domain >> networks, with privacy requirements considered. The basic idea stems from >> the ALTO path-vector extension but goes beyond to take privacy into >> consideration. The following are some pointers. >> >> >> >> [1] "Toward Fine-Grained, Privacy-Preserving, Efficient Multi-Domain >> Network Resource Discovery", IEEE JSAC, 2019. ( >> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8756056) >> [2] "Resource Orchestration for Multi-Domain, Exascale, Geo-Distributed >> Data Analytics", ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiang-alto-multidomain-analytics/) >> >> >> >> For the pointers above, the privacy requirement considered in this work >> is that the network information of multiple domains should be exposed to >> applications as a complete, unified aggregation, appearing as much as >> possible as from a single (virtual) network. We design a network >> information obfuscation mechanism so that the application is not able to >> associate any network resource bottleneck information to any domain, >> reducing the risk of exposing network vulnerability. >> >> >> >> In addition, we also studied how to control the routing across multiple >> domains to achieve more flexible end-to-end interdomain routing. >> Essentially, we propose a mechanism that allows networks to expose their >> available interdomain routes, just as BGP looking glasses, so that >> applications can control them. In this setting, we consider the privacy >> setting where each network's BGP export policies are private, and design >> interesting algorithms for applications to select the best policy-compliant >> routes without knowing the export policies. The following is the pointer >> for this study: >> >> >> >> [3] "Toward Optimal Software-Defined Interdomain Routing". INFOCOM 2020 ( >> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9155486) >> >> >> >> Above are our current efforts on extending ALTO to multi-domain settings. >> It would be great if we can know more about the industry efforts on network >> information exposure in multi-domain settings, and the privacy requirements >> of operators. This would be extremely helpful to push this extension >> forward! :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Qiao >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:14 PM 刘鹏 <liupeng...@chinamobile.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> >> >> Thank you. please see my reply inline below. >> >> >> >> >> >> Peng Liu | 刘鹏 >> >> China Mobile | 移动研究院 >> >> mobile phone:13810146105 >> >> email: * liupeng...@chinamobile.com <liupeng...@chinamobile.com>* >> >> >> >> 发件人: Y. Richard Yang <y...@cs.yale.edu> >> >> 时间: 2021/03/02(星期二)07:36 >> >> 收件人: 刘鹏 <liupeng...@chinamobile.com>; >> >> 抄送人: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>;Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com>; >> >> 主题: Re: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review >> >> Dear Peng, >> >> >> >> Thank you so much for the feedback. Please see below. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:23 PM 刘鹏 <liupeng...@chinamobile.com> wrote: >> >> Hi WG, >> >> >> >> Here are some considerations of recharter: >> >> I believe that the multi domain problem is worthy of attention. >> >> >> >> It is good info. >> >> >> >> At present, operators also research in it, which may involve guaranteeing >> end-to-end network service in the future, such as delay, bandwidth, etc. >> There are some researches on cross domain deterministic network in the >> industry, which need some support from management and control plane. >> >> >> >> Do you want to share some pointers? >> >> >> >> [Peng] As Qin said, it is hard to collect information across network >> borders. >> >> Just taking deterministic network as an example, it is hard to applying >> synchronization, unified forwarding strategy in multi domain, so there are >> some works need to be done with management plane. Due to the large scale >> and multi domains or operators, the management system may be distributed. >> >> A potential way is to consider negotiating the forwarding time of each >> domain in advance and carrying time stamp in the message to control the >> forwarding path of each domain. While it needs some agreements like >> contracts to prevent one party from tampering with and denying the >> management content. >> >> Beside this, there may be others use case. I'm not sure if Alto servers >> are willing to do those work, but it may be helpful to collect or configure >> some key information. >> >> >> >> Who is the provider of Alto service is related to the deployment and >> cooperation mode. It may be difficult for operators to give too much >> detailed network information now. If the Alto service belongs to the >> operator, it may be used to help manage its own network. If Alto service >> belong to non operators, I think the issue of how to cooperate needs >> further discussion. >> >> >> >> It looks that you want to consider both modes: multidomains but single >> operator (i.e., intra-cooperation) and multidomains and multiple operators. >> Regardless, I agree that it is important for the work to clarify on the >> privacy requirements. >> >> >> >> [Peng] Yes, agree. >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Peng >> >> >> >> Peng Liu | 刘鹏 >> >> China Mobile | 移动研究院 >> >> mobile phone:13810146105 >> >> email: * liupeng...@chinamobile.com <liupeng...@chinamobile.com>* >> >> >> >> 发件人: Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> >> >> 时间: 2021/02/22(星期一)21:45 >> >> 收件人: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>; >> >> 抄送人: alto-chairs <alto-cha...@ietf.org>;alto-ads <alto-...@ietf.org>; >> >> 主题: [alto] ALTO Draft ReCharter WG review >> >> Hi, : >> >> We have requested one hour session for ALTO WG meeting in the upcoming >> IETF 110, which is arranged on Friday, March 12, 14:30-15:30(UTC). >> >> The goal is to boil down ALTO recharter and have consensus on charter >> contents in IETF 110. >> >> To get this goal, an updated inline draft charter text for ALTO has just >> been posted to this list, >> >> This charter has received a couple of rounds of informal review from WG >> members, chairs and our Ads from brief to deep thorough, 5 new chartered >> items have been listed. >> >> We would like to solicit feedback on these new chartered items and your >> use case, deployment, idea corresponding to these new chartered items. >> >> Sharing your past deployment story will also be appreciated. >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================================================ >> >> The ALTO working group was established in 2008 to devise a >> request/response protocol to allow a host to benefit from a server that is >> more cognizant of the network infrastructure than the host is. >> >> >> >> The working group has developed an HTTP-based protocol and recent work >> has reported large-scale deployment of ALTO based solutions supporting >> applications such as content distribution networks (CDN). >> >> >> >> ALTO is now proposed as a component for cloud-based interactive >> applications, large-scale data analytics, multi-cloud SD-WAN deployment, >> and distributed >> >> computing. In all these cases, exposing network information such as >> abstract topologies and network function deployment location helps >> applications. >> >> >> >> To support these emerging uses, extensions are needed, and additional >> functional and architectural features need to be considered as follows: >> >> >> >> o Protocol extensions to support a richer and extensible set of policy >> attributes in ALTO information update request and response. Such policy >> attributes may indicate information dependency (e.g., ALTO path-cost/QoS >> properties with dependency on real-time network indications), optimization >> criteria (e.g., lowest latency/throughput network performance objective), >> and constraints (e.g., relaxation bound of optimization criteria, domain or >> network node to be traversed, diversity and redundancy of paths). >> >> >> >> o Protocol extensions for facilitating operational automation tasks and >> improving transport efficiency. In particular, extensions to provide >> "pub/sub" mechanisms to allow the client to request and receive a diverse >> types (such as event-triggered/sporadic, continuous), continuous, >> customized feed of publisher-generated information. Efforts developed in >> other working groups such as MQTT Publish / Subscribe Architecture, WebSub, >> Subscription to YANG Notifications will be considered, and issues such as >> scalability (e.g., using unicast or broadcast/multicast, and periodicity of >> object updates) should be considered. >> >> >> >> o The working group will investigate the configuration, management, and >> operation of ALTO systems and may develop suitable data models. >> >> >> >> o Extensions to ALTO services to support multi-domain settings. ALTO is >> currently specified for a single ALTO server in a single administrative >> domain, but a network may consist of >> >> multiple domains and the potential information sources may not be limited >> to a certain domain. The working group will investigate extending the ALTO >> framework to (1) specify multi-ALTO-server protocol flow and usage >> guidelines when an ALTO service involves network paths spanning multiple >> domains with multiple ALTO servers, and (2) extend or introduce ALTO >> >> services allowing east-west interfaces for multiple ALTO server >> integration and collaboration. The specifications and extensions should use >> existing services whenever possible. The specifications and extensions >> should consider realistic complexities including incremental deployment, >> dynamicity, and security issues such as access control, authorization >> (e.g., an ALTO server provides information for a network that the server >> has no authorization), and privacy protection in multi-domain settings. >> >> >> >> o The working group will update RFC 7971 to provide operational >> considerations for recent protocol extensions (e.g., cost calendar, unified >> properties, and path vector) and new extensions that the WG develops. New >> considerations will include decisions about the set of information >> resources (e.g., what metrics to use), notification of changes either in >> proactive or reactive mode (e.g., pull the backend, or trigger just-in-time >> measurements), aggregation/processing of the collected information (e.g., >> compute information and network information )according to the clients’ >> requests, and integration with new transport mechanisms (e.g., HTTP/2 and >> HTTP/3). >> >> >> >> When the WG considers standardizing information that the ALTO server >> could provide, the following criteria are important >> >> to ensure real feasibility: >> >> >> >> - Can the ALTO server realistically provide (measure or derive) that >> information? >> >> >> >> - Is it information that the ALTO client cannot find easily some other >> way? >> >> >> >> - Is the distribution of the information allowed by the operator of the >> network? Does the exposure of the information introduce privacy and >> information leakage concerns? >> >> >> >> Issues related to the specific content exchanged in systems that make use >> of ALTO are excluded from the WG's scope, as is the issue of dealing >> with enforcing the legality of the content. The WG will also not propose >> standards on how congestion is signaled, remediated, or avoided. >> >> >> >> -Qin Wu (on behalf of chairs) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> alto mailing list >> alto@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> ===================================== >> >> | Y. Richard Yang <y...@cs.yale.edu> | >> >> | Professor of Computer Science | >> >> | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | >> >> ===================================== >> >> _______________________________________________ >> alto mailing list >> alto@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Qiao Xiang >> Professor, >> >> School of Informatics, >> >> Xiamen University >> > > > -- > Qiao Xiang > Associate Research Scientist, > Department of Computer Science, > Yale University > -- Qiao Xiang Associate Research Scientist, Department of Computer Science, Yale University
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto