[alto] FW: New Version Notification for draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-03.txt

2014-07-03 Thread 邓灵莉/Lingli Deng 
Hi all,

We just submitted a revision on extended EP properties draft trying to address 
the comments from recent discussion on the list.
Some of issues remains unaddressed and welcome for further comments and 
discussion.

Cheers,
Lingli

> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:08 PM
> To: Haibin Song; Haibin Song; Deng Lingli; Sebastian Kiesel; Lingli Deng;
> Sebastian Kiesel
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-03.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-03.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Lingli Deng and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name: draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext
> Revision: 03
> Title:End Point Properties for Peer Selection
> Document date:2014-07-04
> Group:Individual Submission
> Pages:10
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-03.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext/
> Htmlized:   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-03
> Diff:   http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-03
> 
> Abstract:
>The initial purpose for ALTO protocol is to provide better than
>random peer selection for p2p networks.  The peer selection method
>does not only depend on the peer location, but also on other
>properties of the peering node.  In this document, we define
>additional endpoint properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat




___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] ALTO topology/graph representation (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-yang-alto-topology-03.txt)

2014-07-03 Thread Greg Bernstein 
Hi Richard and thanks for keeping this work moving.  I'd like to make a
few comments.

(a) Formal proof of the need for topology info?  I think this draft,
Michael's draft and previous drafts have essentially proven that to
support multiple-flow scenarios with resource constraints we must have
increased network information (some kind of topology info).  The current
draft illustrates this requirement with a bottleneck link example for a
multi-flow application.  Previous drafts have pointed out that resilient
(enhanced reliability) applications also require topology info.  If
needed we can get more formal than what is in the current draft.

(b) We have given two general approaches to conveying abstracted
topology information. (1) An abstract path-vector approach where
candidate (potential) paths are listed along with there properties and
dependencies, e.g., shared bottleneck (or risk) links. (2) An abstract
graph representation with pertinent costs and constraint attributes on
the abstracted network elements.  Note that we really mean "abstracted"
paths or network elements. The provider is not sharing details of there
network with the user, only enough information for the user/provider to
achieve their goals with "better than random efficiency". How to go from
an internal management or routing system network description to such an
abstract description is out of scope for this draft.  Some ideas on how
this can be done can be found in
http://grotto-networking.com/files/BandwidthConstraintModeling.pdf.

(c) Why two topology representations? The abstract path vector permits
the greatest abstraction, but can have scalability issues as mentioned
in the draft.  In modern formulations of network design/allocation
problems [1] the abstract path-vector would correspond to what is known
as a "link-path" formulation, and the graph representation to a
"node-link" formulation.  There are differences in what applications
(design/optimization problems) these two approaches are best suited
for[1]. I just finished teaching a graduate network design course using
[1] and have posted all my course slides and sample (Python) code
tohttp://grotto-networking.com/netDesignCourse.html
 see the Lecture #7
slides for the basics.

 Reference [1]: Michal Pioro and Deepankar Medhi, /Routing, Flow, and
Capacity Design in Communication and Computer Networks/, Morgan
Kaufmann, 2004.

(d) As Richard mentioned there are some options on how to best complete
the JSON extensions to support topology extensions. We have from
previous drafts a number of test cases that we want to make sure are
supported but are very flexible in the details.  I the network design
course I just used the NetworkX JSON format for graphs and added
properties for convenience (see Lecture #8), however as previously
discussed on the list (or side discussions) it isn't quite optimal for
ALTO-topology.  However, JSON itself is very flexible and desirable.
With just a few added link/node properties we were able to model,
formulate and solve multi-layer network problems via JSON (see Lectures
16 and 17).

Best Regards
Greg B.


On 7/1/2014 10:58 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We have submitted an update of the net-graph draft below. The goal of
> the draft is to study the graph representation WG item. Here is a
> quick summary of some key components of the draft and related issues:
>
> 1. A parallel draft by Michael Scharf (who is a co-author of this
> draft) as well will be posted soon. Michael's draft will emphasize
> more on the scope of the work, to avoid conflict with the Routing Area.
>
> 2. The draft uses a simple multi-flow scheduling use case to argue
> that we need an path-vector + X representation. We do not have a
> formal proof that path-vector must be used, but we do not see an
> alternative without using path-vectors to convey network policies.
> This is important given that ALTO targets applications and hence needs
> to convey network policy constraints. If you have a counter-argument
> (i.e., solution), or a more formal argument, we are eager to listen to
> your point of view.
>
> 3. The draft gives two possibilities for the aforementioned X to
> complete the design: (1) X is an unstructured hash from network
> element to element properties, and (2) X is a node-edge graph
> representation. In (1), there is actually no need to distinguish
> between nodes and edges. From the multi-flow use case alone, we cannot
> make a convincing argument that we need the more structured case of
> (2). To finish the argument for using X = node-edge graph, we feel
> that we will have to need an application-layer guided network-layer
> routing (e.g., SDN) use case. Any insightful input/comments on this
> aspect will be highly interesting and appreciated!
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
> Date: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:58 AM
> Subject: New Version Noti

[alto] Agenda requests reminder

2014-07-03 Thread Vijay K. Gurbani 

Folks: Just a reminder ... please send agenda requests by tomorrow
(Fri, July 4) to Enrico and me.

We will post a draft agenda on or before Monday.

Cheers,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurb...@alcatel-lucent.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

[alto] draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10

2014-07-03 Thread Scharf, Michael (Michael) 
Hi all,

I tried to address all obvious open issues in -09, as far as I can.

Here is a list of some of the updates:

* Adding of a section on terminology with reference to RFC 5693, in particular 
regarding the term "ALTO server", based on a discussion with Sebastian, as well 
as related updates of Section 2.2.3

* Some updated text in the section on rating criteria (Section 3.2.4), 
including a reference to draft-wu-alto-te-metrics

* Changes to the monitoring text (Section 3.4) as discussed before/during the 
last meeting; the text should now address all comments I received on that 
section

* Some consistency updates between different sections in the P2P use case 
(Section 4)

* Improvements of the security section (Section 7) with better references to 
the new security section in the protocol specification

* Many small editorial changes 

The full diff compared to -09 can be found at the link below.

Thanks

Michael



-Original Message-
From: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:26 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: alto@ietf.org
Subject: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization 
Working Group of the IETF.

Title   : ALTO Deployment Considerations
Authors : Martin Stiemerling
  Sebastian Kiesel
  Stefano Previdi
  Michael Scharf
Filename: draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10.txt
Pages   : 55
Date: 2014-07-03

Abstract:
   Many Internet applications are used to access resources such as
   pieces of information or server processes that are available in
   several equivalent replicas on different hosts.  This includes, but
   is not limited to, peer-to-peer file sharing applications.  The goal
   of Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) is to provide
   guidance to applications that have to select one or several hosts
   from a set of candidates, which are able to provide a desired
   resource.  This memo discusses deployment related issues of ALTO.  It
   addresses different use cases of ALTO such as peer-to-peer file
   sharing and CDNs and presents corresponding examples.  The document
   also includes recommendations for network administrators and
   application designers planning to deploy ALTO.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-deployments/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10.txt

2014-07-03 Thread internet-drafts 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization 
Working Group of the IETF.

Title   : ALTO Deployment Considerations
Authors : Martin Stiemerling
  Sebastian Kiesel
  Stefano Previdi
  Michael Scharf
Filename: draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10.txt
Pages   : 55
Date: 2014-07-03

Abstract:
   Many Internet applications are used to access resources such as
   pieces of information or server processes that are available in
   several equivalent replicas on different hosts.  This includes, but
   is not limited to, peer-to-peer file sharing applications.  The goal
   of Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) is to provide
   guidance to applications that have to select one or several hosts
   from a set of candidates, which are able to provide a desired
   resource.  This memo discusses deployment related issues of ALTO.  It
   addresses different use cases of ALTO such as peer-to-peer file
   sharing and CDNs and presents corresponding examples.  The document
   also includes recommendations for network administrators and
   application designers planning to deploy ALTO.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-deployments/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-deployments-10


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto