Hi Jensen, <snip>
>> Yes the YANG needs to follow whatever decision is taken regarding the >> ALTO server-to-server communication. There is also a high-level >> decision that if we have a single YANG model for ALTO that can be used >> by both client and server or have independent yang models: one for >> client and another for server. >> > > My personal feeling is that the configuration requirements for the ALTO > server and client are very different. e.g., The ALTO server needs to be > configured which services it can provide, while the ALTO client needs to be > configured which servers and services it would like to request. So I'm not > sure if we should define a single YANG model for both client and server. > But I notice that PCEP defines a single model for both PCE and PCC. From > your experience, which decision is better for ALTO? > > Dhruv: To me, this would be dependent on what we do with ALTO server-to-server communication. If one server is acting as a client and would need management in the same way as a stand-alone ALTO client, then a single model helps avoid duplication. <snip> >> Using the YANG model for monitoring purposes (status, error, >> statistics) at the ALTO client/server is quite useful. >> > > Thanks for your suggestion. From your experience, which kind of > information should not be monitored using the YANG model? For example, if > the client wants to record all the historical requests, should we use the > YANG model to do it? Or we should only use the YANG model to track the > immediate status? > > Dhruv: I doubt the ALTO client remembers the past request. YANG cant model data that doesn't exist. Correct me if I am mistaken. The immediate status, the statistics, the last error, is what you would usually find! Thanks! Dhruv Thanks, > Jensen > > >> >> Thanks, >> Dhruv >> >> > It would be great if people can share further comments or their own >> interesting use cases. >> > >> > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-15 >> > [2] >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06 >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Jensen >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:51 PM Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > alto mailing list >> > alto@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
