Hi all,
Below are some thoughts on the overlay/underlay integration discussion. Please
see details inline.
Kai
-----Original Messages-----
From:"Qin Wu" <bill...@huawei.com>
Sent Time:2021-03-11 15:55:31 (Thursday)
To: "Jensen Zhang" <jingxuan.n.zh...@gmail.com>
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [alto] Bringing operation automation cases to the list
Hi, Jensen:
发件人: Jensen Zhang [mailto:jingxuan.n.zh...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2021年3月11日 15:39
收件人: Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com>
抄送: Y. Richard Yang <y...@cs.yale.edu>; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
<luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com>; alto@ietf.org
主题: Re: [alto] Bringing operation automation cases to the list
Hi all,
Please see my comments inline.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:38 PM Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi, Richard:
发件人: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Y. Richard Yang
发送时间: 2021年3月11日 12:52
收件人: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com>
抄送: alto@ietf.org
主题: Re: [alto] Bringing operation automation cases to the list
Hi Luis,
Good summary. Please see below.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:18 PM LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
<luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Apologies for the time taking to post the operation automation cases to the
list.
As part of the re-charter discussion, four use cases will be considered for
supporting the proposal in which respect to ALTO extensions for operation
automation.
Case 1. Extensions to RFC 7971 leveraging on previous protocol extensions
(e.g., cost calendar, path vector) that can make necessary new architectural
and deployment considerations
RFC7971 is valuable and hence an update to include the effects of protocol
extensions is highly valuable. I understand that cost calendar and path vector
are examples, and other extensions such as SSE can be included and we want to
make sure to do a relatively comprehensive update.
[Qin]: Another limitation of RC7971 is to lack multi-domain support. Therefore
I feel multi-domain support should be also documented for this item to address
limitation of ALTO deployment in RFC7971.
Yes, multi-domain support can be also considered. But we need to clarify the
limitation of existing deployment considerations for multiple-domain cases in
RFC7971 (e.g., cascaded servers). To compare with the well-specified extensions
like cost calendar, path vector, and SSE, one concern is that the multi-domain
support may involve new extensions which have not been well specified yet.
[Qin]: Good point, this is chicken-egg problem.:-)
Case 2. Usage of ALTO for combined compute and network selection (e.g., for
optimal edge computing service placement).
Does Case 2 belong to general protocol extension or operation automation?
[Qin]:I think operation automation is also required in this case, i.e., how
network information and compute information are aggregated. One thing I am not
sure is whether
Whether path vector has already supported compute information? Maybe author can
clarify.
The path vector extension itself doesn't support compute information. I assume
you are talking about the entity property map. I think we can leverage the
entity property map to expose the compute information by defining new entity
domains and property types systematically (like what the performance cost
metrics document does). But we need to dig into real use cases to see if
anything is missing.
But beyond the protocol extension, I'm also interested in how to collect those
compute information from an operator's view. It will also affect the data model
work.
[Qin]: IETF Dyncast side meeting last night investigate what metric should be
defined, how frequent the update is, I think probably also related to this
issue. I think ALTO can provide a solution for compute information exposure if
we look for centralized solution.
Case 3. Extensions to ALTO for acting as aggregator of information from
different sources (e.g., TEDB, LSP DB, etc)
Case 3 is definitely a good use case supporting operation automation.
Case 4. Overlay / underlay integration supported by ALTO (e.g., CDN).
Overlay/underlay integration can have many aspects. So the goal is to focus on
the operation automation aspect? One possibility is to define operation
automation broadly, including operation automation of not only ALTO but the
overall system (i.e., the integrated overlay/underlay). If this is the case, we
may want to specify the scope well.
[Qin]: Agree, I think this case describe ALTO interface as Network as a service
interface, allow the underlay expose capability and status to the overlay, So
overlay can know how to optimize the service delivery. This case looks very
interesting.
I think not just the underlay can expose info to the overlay, the overlay can
also express its fine-grained demand and subscribe info to the underlay. It may
have some overlaps with the pub/sub item. We may need more clarification about
the integration solution.
[KAI] When Jensen said "overlaps with the pub/sub item", my understanding is
that the integration is a closed-loop such that the overlay may alter its
demands/subscriptions based on ALTO information received from the underlay, and
the underlay also somehow subscribes to those demands and may return different
information accordingly.
[KAI] My first reaction is "Isn't this how pub/sub works in ALTO?" if demands
simply represent subscriptions from an ALTO client. Or maybe the demands can be
something that is not defined in the current ALTO documents/extensions? In that
case, I think it would be helpful to first clarify the integration problem
here: what capabilitybeyond existing ALTO extensions is essential to enable
such kind of integration?
[KAI] I do see that the overlay/underlay integration is closely related to
operation automation and data model, especially in the case where both underlay
(ALTO server) and overlay (ALTO client) belong to the same administrative
domain.
And we should also better clarify the goal (to deliver either an experience
document or a standard document).
[Qin]: I assume you are asking whether we should document this item as BCP or
standard track, or experimental, I am not worried about its overlapping with
pub sub item, BCP can document the best practice, which is not necessary to
introduce any protocol extension.
[KAI] I agree that a document is essential.
Thanks,
Jensen
Looking forward to a great discussion on Friday.
Richard
Any comment, suggestion or indication is more than welcome.
Thanks
Luis
__________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
Technology and Planning
Transport, IP and Interconnection Networks
Telefónica I+D / Global CTIO unit / Telefónica
Distrito Telefónica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3
28050 Madrid
España / Spain
Skype (Lync): +34 91 312 9084
Mobile: +34 680 947 650
luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
