Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost
Network Working Group S. Randriamasy
Internet-Draft W. Roome
Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Bell Labs
Expires: October 29, 2017 N. Schwan
Thales Deutschland
April 27, 2017
Multi-Cost ALTO
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-10
Abstract
The ALTO (Application Layer-Traffic Optimization) Protocol
([RFC7285]) defines several services that return various metrics
describing the costs between network endpoints.
This document defines a new service that allows an ALTO Client to
retrieve several cost metrics in a single request for an ALTO
Filtered Cost Map and Endpoint Cost Map. In addition, it extends the
constraints to further filter those maps by allowing a client to
specify a logical combination of tests on several cost metrics.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview Of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy ALTO Clients . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6.1. Extended constraint predicates . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6.2. Extended logical combination of predicates . . . . . 7
3.6.3. Testable Cost Types in constraints . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.4. Testable Cost Type Names in IRD capabilities . . . . 9
3.6.5. Legacy ALTO Client issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions . . . . 11
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Information Resource Directory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1 . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2 . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3 . . . . . . . . 22
5.5. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #4 . . . . . . . . 23
5.6. Endpoint Cost Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Privacy And Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
1. Introduction
IETF has defined ALTO services in [RFC7285] to provide guidance to
overlay applications, which have to select one or several hosts from
a set of candidates that are able to provide a desired resource.
This guidance is based on parameters such as the topological
distance, that affect performance of the data transmission between
the hosts. The purpose of ALTO is to improve Quality of Experience
(QoE) in the application while reducing resource consumption in the
underlying network infrastructure. The ALTO protocol conveys a view
of the Internet called a Network Map and composed of Provider defined
locations spanning from subnets to several Autonomous Systems (AS).
ALTO may also convey the Provider determined Costs between Network
Map locations or between groups of individual endpoints.
Current ALTO Cost Types provide values such as hopcount and
administrative routing cost to reflect ISP routing preferences.
Recently, new use cases have extended the usage scope of ALTO to
Content Delivery Networks (CDN), Data Centers and applications that
need additional information to select their endpoints or network
locations. Thus a multitude of new Cost Types that better reflect
the requirements of these applications are expected to be specified.
The ALTO protocol [RFC7285], which this document refers to as the
base protocol, restricts ALTO Cost Maps and Endpoint Cost Services to
only one Cost Type per ALTO request. To retrieve information for
several Cost Types, an ALTO Client must send several separate
requests to the Server.
It is far more efficient, in terms of Round Trip Time (RTT), traffic,
and processing load on the ALTO Client and Server, to get all costs
with a single query/response transaction. One Cost Map reporting on
N Cost Types is less bulky than N Cost Maps containing one Cost Type
each. This is valuable for both the storage of these maps and their
transmission. Additionally, for many emerging applications that need
information on several Cost Types, having them gathered in one map
will save time. Another advantage is consistency: providing values
for several Cost Types in one single batch is useful for ALTO Clients
needing synchronized ALTO information updates. This document defines
how to retrieve multiple cost metrics in a single request for ALTO
Filtered Cost Maps and Endpoint Cost Maps. To ensure compatibility
with legacy ALTO Clients, only the Filtered Cost Map and Endpoint
Cost Map services are extended to return Multi-Cost values.
Along with multi-cost values queries, the filtering capabilities need
to be extended to allow constraints on multiple metrics. The base
protocol allows an ALTO Client to provide optional constraint tests
for a Filtered Cost Map or the Endpoint Cost Service, where the
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
constraint tests are limited to the AND-combination of comparison
tests on the value of the (single) requested Cost Type. However,
applications that are sensitive to several metrics and struggle with
complicated network conditions may need to arbitrate between
conflicting objectives such as routing cost and network performance.
To this end, this document extends the base protocol with constraints
that may test multiple metrics and may be combined with logical 'ORs'
as well as logical 'ANDs'. This allows an application to make
requests such as: "select solutions with either (moderate "hopcount"
AND high "routingcost") OR (higher "hopcount" AND moderate
"routingcost")".
This document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines terminology
used in this document. Section 3 gives a non-normative overview of
the multi-cost extensions, and Section 4 gives their formal
definitions. Section 5 gives several complete examples. The
remaining sections describe the IANA and privacy considerations.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
When the words appear in lower case, their natural language meaning
is used.
2. Terminology
o ALTO transaction: A request/response exchange between an ALTO
Client and an ALTO Server.
o Client: This term refers to an ALTO client, when used with a
capital "C".
o Endpoint (EP): An endpoint is defined as in {2.1} of [RFC7285].
It can be for example a peer, a CDN storage location, a physical
server involved in a virtual server-supported application, a party
in a resource sharing swarm such as a computation grid or an
online multi-party game.
o Server: This term refers to an ALTO server, when used with a
capital "S".
References with curly brackets such as '{1.2.3}' are to sections in
the ALTO protocol specification [RFC7285], to avoid overloading the
document with citations of [RFC7285].
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
3. Overview Of Approach
The following is a non-normative overview of the multi-cost
extensions defined in this document. It assumes the reader is
familiar with Cost Map resources in the ALTO Protocol ([RFC7285]).
3.1. Multi-Cost Data Format
Formally, the cost entries in an ALTO Cost Map can be any type of
JSON value (see the DstCosts object in {11.2.3.6}). However, that
section also says that an implementation may assume costs are JSON
numbers, unless the implementation is using an extension which
signals a different data type.
Therefore this document extends the definition of a Cost Map to allow
a cost to be an array of costs, one per metric, instead of just one
number. For example, here is a Cost Map with the "routingcost" and
"hopcount" metrics. Note that this is identical to a regular ALTO
Cost Map, except that the values are arrays instead of numbers. The
multiple metrics are listed in member "multi-cost-types", indicating
to the Client how to map values in the array to cost metrics.
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [ ... ],
"cost-type" : {},
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "hopcount"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1":[1,0], "PID2":[5,23], "PID3":[10,5] },
...
}
}
Note also the presence of member '"cost-type" : {}' to maintain
backwards compatibility with [RFC7285].
3.2. Compatibility With Legacy ALTO Clients
This document does not define any new media types. Instead, as
described below, it extends the specifications in the ALTO Server's
Information Resource Directory (IRD) so that legacy Clients will not
request array-valued Multi Cost Map resources. This relies on the
requirement that ALTO Clients MUST ignore unknown fields ({8.3.7}).
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
3.3. Filtered Multi Cost Map Resources
This document extends the Filtered Cost Map service to allow the same
resource to return either a single-valued Cost Map, as defined in
[RFC7285], or an array-valued Multi Cost Map, as defined in this
document. An extended Filtered Cost Map resource has a new
capability, "max-cost-types". The value is the maximum number of
cost types this resource can return for one request. The existence
of this capability means the resource understands the extensions in
this document.
For example, the following fragment from an IRD defines an extended
Filtered Cost Map resource:
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ],
...
}
A legacy ALTO Client will ignore the "max-cost-types" capability, and
will send a request with the input parameter "cost-type" describing
the desired cost metric, as defined in [RFC7285]. The ALTO Server
will return a single-valued legacy Cost Map.
However, a multi-cost-aware ALTO Client will realize that this
resource supports the multi-cost extensions, and can send a POST
request with the new input parameter "multi-cost-types", whose value
is an array of cost types. Because the request has the "multi-cost-
types" parameter (rather than the "cost-type" parameter defined in
the base protocol), the Server realizes that the ALTO Client also
supports the extensions in this document, and hence responds with a
Multi Cost Map, with the costs in the order listed in "multi-cost-
types".
3.4. Endpoint Cost Service Resources
Section {4.1.4} of [RFC7285] specifies that "The Endpoint Cost
Service allows an ALTO Server to return costs directly amongst
endpoints.", whereas the Filtered Cost Map Service returns costs
amongst PIDs. This document uses the technique described in
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
Section 3.3 to extend the Endpoint Cost Service to return array-
valued costs to ALTO Clients who also are aware of these extensions.
3.5. Full Cost Map Resources
Section {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285] requires a Filtered Cost Map to
return the entire Cost Map if the ALTO Client omits the source and
destination PIDs. Hence a Multi-Cost aware ALTO Client can use an
extended Filtered Cost Map resource to get a full Multi Cost Map.
Full Cost Map resources are GET-mode requests. The response for a
Full Cost Map conveying multiple cost types would include a "meta"
field that would itself include a "cost-type" field, that would list
several values corresponding to the cost types of the cost map. A
legacy ALTO Client would not be able to understand this list.
Neither would it be able to interpret the cost values array provided
by a Multi-Cost full maps.
3.6. Extended Constraint Tests
[RFC7285] defines a simple constraint test capability for Filtered
Cost Maps and Endpoint Cost Services. If a resource supports
constraints, the Server restricts the response to costs that satisfy
a list of simple predicates provided by the ALTO Client. For
example, if the ALTO Client gives the constraints
"constraints": ["ge 10", "le 20"]
Then the Server only returns costs in the range [10,20].
To be useful with multi-cost requests, the constraint tests require
several extensions.
3.6.1. Extended constraint predicates
First, because a multi-cost request involves more than one cost
metric, the simple predicates must be extended to specify the metric
to test. Therefore we extend the predicate syntax to "[##] op
value", where "##" is the index of a cost metric in this multi-cost
request.
3.6.2. Extended logical combination of predicates
Second, once multiple cost metrics are involved, the "AND" of simple
predicates is no longer sufficient. To be useful, Clients must be
able to express "OR" tests. Hence we add a new field, "or-
constraints", to the Client request. The value is an array of arrays
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
of simple predicates, and represents the OR of ANDs of those
predicates.
Thus, the following request tells the Server to limit its response to
cost points with "routingcost" <= 100 AND "hopcount" <= 2, OR else
"routingcost" <= 10 AND "hopcount" <= 6:
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "routingcost", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
{"cost-metric": "hopcount", "cost-mode": "numerical"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 100", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids": {...}
}
Note that a "constraints" parameter with the array of predicates [P1,
P2, ...] is equivalent to an "or-constraints" parameter with one
array of value [[P1, P2, ...]]. A Client is therefore allowed to
express either "constraints" or "or-constraints" but not both.
3.6.3. Testable Cost Types in constraints
Finally, a Client may want to test a cost type whose actual value is
irrelevant, as long as it satisfies the tests. For example, a Client
may want the value of the cost metric "routingcost" for all PID pairs
that satisfy constraints on the metric "hopcount", without needing
the actual value of "hopcount".
To this end, we add a specific parameter named "testable-cost-types",
that does not contain the same cost types as parameter "multi-cost-
types". The Client can express constraints only on cost types listed
in "testable-cost-types".
For example, the following request tells the Server to return just
"routingcost" for those source and destination pairs for which
"hopcount" is <= 6:
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "routingcost", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
],
"testable-cost-types": [
{"cost-metric": "hopcount", "cost-mode": "numerical"},
],
"constraints": ["[0] le 6"],
"pids": {...}
}
3.6.4. Testable Cost Type Names in IRD capabilities
In [RFC7285], when a resource's capability "constraints" is true, the
Server accepts constraints on all the cost types listed in the "cost-
type-names" capability. However, some ALTO Servers may not be
willing to allow constraint tests on all available cost metrics.
Therefore the Multi-Cost ALTO protocol extension defines the
capability field "testable-cost-type-names". Like "cost-type-names",
it is an array of cost type names. If present, that resource only
allows constraint tests on the cost types in that list. "testable-
cost-type-names" must be a subset of "cost-type-names".
3.6.5. Legacy ALTO Client issues
While a multi-cost-aware Client will recognize the "testable-cost-
type-names" field, and will honor those restrictions, a legacy Client
will not. Hence, when "constraints" has the value 'true', a legacy
client may send a request with a constraint test on any of the cost
types listed in "cost-type-names".
To avoid that problem, the "testable-cost-type-names" and "cost-
constraints" fields are mutually exclusive: a resource may define one
or the other capability, but MUST NOT define both. Thus a resource
that does not allow constraint tests on all cost metrics will set
"testable-cost-type-names" to the testable metrics, and will set
"cost-constraints" to "false". A multi-cost-aware Client will
recognize the "testable-cost-type-names" field, and will realize that
its existence means the resource does allow (limited) constraint
tests, while a legacy Client will think that resource does not allow
constraint tests at all. To allow legacy Clients to use constraint
tests, the ALTO Server can define an additional resource with "cost-
constraints" set to "true" and "cost-type-names" set to the metrics
which can be tested.
In the IRD example below, the resource "filtered-cost-map-extended"
provides values for three metrics: "num-routingcost", "num-hopcount"
and "num-bwscore". The capability "testable-cost-type-names"
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
indicates that the Server only allows constraints on "routingcost"
and "hopcount". A multi-cost capable Client will see this
capability, and will limit its constraint tests to those metrics.
Because capability "cost-constraints" is false (by default), a legacy
Client will not use constraint tests on this resource at all.
The second resource, "filtered-multicost-map", is similar to the
first, except that all the metrics it returns are testable.
Therefore it sets "cost-constraints" to "true", and does not set the
"testable-cost-type-names" field. A legacy Client that needs a
constraint test will use this resource rather than the first. A
multi-cost-aware Client that does not need to retrieve the "num-
bwscore" metric may use either resource.
Note that if a multi-cost Server specifies a "filtered-cost-map-
extended", it will most likely not specify an "filtered-multicost-
map" if the capabilities of the latter are covered by the
capabilities of the former or unless the "filtered-multicost-map"
ressource is also intended for legacy Clients.
"filtered-cost-map-extended" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/extn/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 3,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount",
"num-bwscore"],
"testable-cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount" ]
}
},
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-hopcount"],
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
4. Protocol Extensions for Multi-Cost ALTO Transactions
This section formally specifies the extensions to [RFC7285] to
support Multi-Cost ALTO transactions.
This document uses the notation rules specified in {8.2}. In
particular, an optional field is enclosed by [ ]. In the
definitions, the JSON names of the fields are case sensitive. An
array is indicated by two numbers in angle brackets, <m..n>, where m
indicates the minimal number of values and n is the maximum. When
this document uses * for n, it means no upper bound.
4.1. Filtered Cost Map Extensions
This document extends Filtered Cost Maps, as defined in {11.3.2} of
[RFC7285], by adding new input parameters and capabilities, and by
returning JSONArrays instead of JSONNumbers as the cost values.
The media type (11.3.2.1}, HTTP method (11.3.2.2} and "uses"
specifications (11.3.2.5} are unchanged.
4.1.1. Capabilities
The filtered cost map capabilities are extended with two new members:
o max-cost-types,
o testable-cost-type-names
The capability "max-cost-types" indicates whether this resource
supports the Multi-Cost ALTO extensions, and the capability
"testable-cost-type-names" allows the resource to restrict constraint
tests to a subset of the available cost types. With these two
additional members, the FilteredCostMapCapabilities object in
{11.3.2.4} is structured as follows:
object {
JSONString cost-type-names<1..*>;
[JSONBool cost-constraints;]
[JSONNumber max-cost-types;]
[JSONString testable-cost-type-names<1..*>;]
} FilteredCostMapCapabilities;
cost-type-names: As defined in {11.3.2.4} of [RFC7285].
cost-constraints: As defined in {11.3.2.4} of [RFC7285]. Thus if
"cost-constraints" is true, the resource MUST accept constraint
tests on any cost type in "cost-type-names". Note in addition
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
that if "cost-constraints" is "true", the "testable-cost-type-
names" capability MUST NOT be present
max-cost-types: If present with value N greater than 0, this
resource understands the multi-cost extensions in this document,
and can return a Multi Cost Map with any combination of N or fewer
cost types in the "cost-type-names" list. If omitted, the default
value is 0.
testable-cost-type-names: If present, the resource allows constraint
tests, but only on the cost type names in this array. Each name
in "testable-cost-type-names" MUST also be in "cost-type-names".
If "testable-cost-type-names" is present, the "cost-constraints"
capability MUST NOT be true.
As discussed in Section 3.6.4, this capability is useful when a
Server is unable or unwilling to implement constraint tests on all
cost types. As discussed in Section 3.6.5, "testable-cost-type-
names" and "cost-constraints" are mutually exclusive to prevent
legacy Clients from issuing constraint tests on untestable cost
types.
4.1.2. Accept Input Parameters
The ReqFilteredCostMap object in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285] is extended
as follows:
object {
[CostType cost-type;]
[CostType multi-cost-types<1..*>;]
[CostType testable-cost-types<1..*>;]
[JSONString constraints<0..*>;]
[JSONString or-constraints<1..*><1..*>;]
[PIDFilter pids];
} ReqFilteredCostMap;
cost-type: As defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285], with the
additional requirement that the Client MUST specify either "cost-
type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both. Therefore
this field is made optional. When placing a single cost request
as specified in [RFC7285], a Client MUST use "cost-type".
multi-cost-types: If present, the ALTO Server MUST return array-
valued costs for the cost types in this list. For each entry, the
"cost-metric" and "cost-mode" fields MUST match one of the
supported cost types indicated in member "cost-type-names" of this
resource's "capabilities" field (Section 4.1.1). The Client MUST
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
NOT use this field unless this resource's "max-cost-types"
capability exists and has a value greater than 0. This field MUST
NOT have more than "max-cost-types" cost types. The Client MUST
specify either "cost-type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT
specify both.
Note that if "multi-cost-types" has one cost type, the values in
the cost map will be arrays with one value.
testable-cost-types: A list of cost types used for extended
constraint tests, as described for the "constraints" and "or-
constraints" parameters. These cost types must either be a subset
of the cost types in the resource's "testable-cost-type-names"
capability (Section 4.1.1), or else, if the resource's capability
"cost-constraints" is true, a subset of the cost types in the
resource's "cost-type-names" capability.
If "testable-cost-types" is omitted, it is assumed to have the
cost types in "multi-cost-types" or "cost-type".
This feature is useful when a Client wants to test a cost type
whose actual value is irrelevant, as long as it satisfies the
tests. For example, a Client may want the cost metric
"routingcost" for those PID pairs whose "hopcount" is less than
10. The exact hopcount does not matter.
constraints: If this resource's "max-cost-types" capability
(Section 4.1.1) has the value 0 (or is not defined), this
parameter is as defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285]: an array of
constraint tests related to each other by a logical AND. In this
case it MUST NOT be specified unless the resource's "cost-
constraints" capability is "true".
If this resource's "max-cost-types" capability has a value greater
than 0, then this parameter is an array of extended constraint
predicates as defined below and related to each other by a logical
AND. In this case, it MAY be specified if the resource allows
constraint tests (the resource's "cost-constraints" capability is
"true" or its "testable-cost-type-names" capability is not empty).
This parameter MUST NOT be specified if the "or-constraints"
parameter is specified.
An extended constraint predicate consists of two or three entities
separated by white space: (1) an optional cost type index, of the
form "[#]", with default value "[0]", (2) a required operator, and
(3) a required target value. The operator and target value are as
defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285]. The cost type index, i,
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
specifies the cost type to test. If the "testable-cost-type"
parameter is present, the test applies to the i'th cost type in
"testable-cost-types", starting with index 0. Otherwise if the
"multi-cost-types" parameter is present, the test applies to the
i'th cost type in that array. If neither parameters are present,
the test applies to the cost type in the "cost-type" parameter, in
which case the index MUST be 0. Regardless of how the tested cost
type is selected, it MUST be in the resource's "testable-cost-
type-names" capability, or, if not present, in the "cost-type-
names" capability.
As an example, suppose "multi-cost-types" has the single element
"routingcost", "testable-cost-types" has the single element
"hopcount", and "constraints" has the single element "[0] le 5".
This is equivalent to the database query "SELECT and provide
routingcost WHERE hopcount <= 5".
Note that the index is optional, so a constraint test as defined
in {11.3.2.3}, such as "le 10", is equivalent to "[0] le 10".
Thus legacy constraint tests are also legal extended constraint
tests.
Note that a "constraints" parameter with the array of extended
predicates [P1, P2, ...] is equivalent to an "or-constraints"
parameter as defined below, with the value [[P1, P2, ...]].
or-constraints: A JSONArray of JSONArrays of JSONStrings, where each
string is an extended constraint predicate as defined above. The
"or-constraint" tests are interpreted as the logical OR of ANDs of
predicates. That is, the ALTO Server should return a cost point
only if it satisfies all constraints in any one of the sub-arrays.
This parameter MAY be specified if this resource's "max-cost-
types" capability is defined with a value greater than 0
(Section 4.1.1), and if the resource allows constraint tests (the
resource's "cost-constraints" capability is "true" or its
"testable-cost-type-names" capability is not empty). Otherwise
this parameter MUST NOT be specified.
This parameter MUST NOT be specified if the "constraints"
parameter is specified.
This parameter MUST NOT contain any empty array of AND predicates.
An empty array would be equivalent to a constraint that is always
"true". An OR combination including such a constraint would be
always "true" and thus useless.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
As an example, suppose "multi-cost-types" has the two elements
"routingcost" and "bandwidthscore", and "testable-cost-types" has
the two elements "routingcost" and "hopcount", and "or-
constraints" has the two elements ["[0] le 100", "[1] le 2"] and
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 6"]. This is equivalent to the words:
"SELECT and provide routingcost and bandwidthscore WHERE
("routingcost" <= 100 AND "hopcount" <= 2) OR ("routingcost" <= 10
AND "hopcount" <= 6)".
Note that if the "max-cost-types" capability has a value greater
than 0, a Client MAY use the "or-constraints" parameter together
with the "cost-type" parameter. That is, if the Client and Server
are both aware of the extensions in this document, a Client MAY
use an "OR" test for a single-valued cost request.
pids: As defined in {11.3.2.3} of [RFC7285].
4.1.3. Response
If the Client specifies the "cost-type" input parameter, the response
is exactly as defined in {11.2.3.6} of [RFC7285]. If the Client
provides the "multi-cost-types" instead, then the response is changed
as follows:
o In "meta", the value of field "cost-type" will be ignored by the
receiver and set to {}. Instead, the field "multi-cost-types" is
added with the same value as the "multi-cost-types" input
parameter.
o The costs are JSONArrays, instead of JSONNumbers. All arrays have
the same cardinality as the "multi-cost-types" input parameter,
and contain the cost type values in that order. If a cost type is
not available for a particular source and destination, the ALTO
Server MUST use the JSON "null" value for that array element. If
none of the cost types are available for a particular source and
destination, the ALTO Server MAY omit the entry for that source
and destination.
4.2. Endpoint Cost Service Extensions
This document extends the Endpoint Cost Service, as defined in
{11.5.1} of [RFC7285], by adding new input parameters and
capabilities, and by returning JSONArrays instead of JSONNumbers as
the cost values.
The media type {11.5.1.1}, HTTP method {11.5.1.2} and "uses"
specifications {11.5.1.5} are unchanged.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
4.2.1. Capabilities
The extensions to the Endpoint Cost Service capabilities are
identical to the extensions to the Filtered Cost Map (see
Section 4.1.1).
4.2.2. Accept Input Parameters
The ReqEndpointCostMap object in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285] is extended
as follows:
object {
[CostType cost-type;]
[CostType multi-cost-types<1..*>;]
[CostType testable-cost-types<1..*>;]
[JSONString constraints<0..*>;]
[JSONString or-constraints<1..*><1..*>;]
EndpointFilter endpoints;
} ReqEndpointCostMap;
cost-type: As defined in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285], with the
additional requirement that the Client MUST specify either "cost-
type" or "multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both.
multi-cost-types: If present, the ALTO Server MUST return array-
valued costs for the cost types in this list. For each entry, the
"cost-metric" and "cost-mode" fields MUST match one of the
supported cost types indicated in this resource's "capabilities"
field (Section 4.2.1). The Client MUST NOT use this field unless
this resource's "max-cost-types" capability exists and has a value
greater than 0. This field MUST NOT have more than "max-cost-
types" cost types. The Client MUST specify either "cost-type" or
"multi-cost-types", but MUST NOT specify both.
Note that if "multi-cost-types" has one cost type, the values in
the cost map will be arrays with one value.
testable-cost-types, constraints, or-constraints: Defined
equivalently to the corresponding input parameters for an extended
Filtered Cost Map (Section 4.1.2).
endpoints: As defined in {11.5.1.3} of [RFC7285].
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
4.2.3. Response
The extensions to the Endpoint Cost Service response are similar to
the extensions to the Filtered Cost Map response (Section 4.1.3).
Specifically, if the Client specifies the "cost-type" input
parameter, the response is exactly as defined in {11.5.1.6} of
[RFC7285]. If the Client provides the "multi-cost-types" instead,
then the response is changed as follows:
o In "meta", the value of field "cost-type" will be ignored by the
receiver and set to {}. Instead, the field "multi-cost-types" is
added with the same value as the "multi-cost-types" input
parameter.
o The costs are JSONArrays, instead of JSONNumbers. All arrays have
the same cardinality as the "multi-cost-types" input parameter,
and contain the cost type values in that order. If a cost type is
not available for a particular source and destination, the ALTO
Server MUST use the JSON "null" value for that array element. If
none of the cost types are available for a particular source and
destination, the ALTO Server MAY omit the entry for that source
and destination.
5. Examples
This section provides examples of Multi-Cost ALTO transactions. It
uses cost metrics, in addition to the mandatory legacy 'routingcost',
that are deliberately irrelevant and not registered at the IANA.
5.1. Information Resource Directory
The following is an example of an ALTO Server's Information Resource
Directory. In addition to Network and Cost Map resources, it defines
two Filtered Cost Map and an Endpoint Cost Service, which all
understand the multi-cost extensions.
GET /directory HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-directory+json,application/alto-error+json
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 2704
Content-Type: application/alto-directory+json
{
"meta" : {
"default-alto-network-map" : "my-default-network-map",
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
"cost-types" : {
"num-routing" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "routingcost"
},
"num-shoesize" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "shoesize"
},
"num-scenery" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric" : "sceneryrate"
}
}
},
"resources" : {
"my-default-network-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap",
"media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json"
},
"numerical-routing-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num-routing",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ]
}
},
"numerical-shoesize-cost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num-shoesize",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-shoesize" ]
}
},
"filtered-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-shoesize" ]
}
},
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
"filtered-cost-map-extended" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/extn/costmap/filtered",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"max-cost-types" : 3,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-shoesize",
"num-scenery"],
"testable-cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-shoesize" ]
}
},
"endpoint-multicost-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/multi/endpointcost/lookup",
"media-types" : [ "application/alto-endpointcost+json" ],
"accepts" : [ "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json" ],
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map" ],
"capabilities" : {
"cost-constraints" : true,
"max-cost-types" : 2,
"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost",
"num-shoesize" ]
}
}
}
}
5.2. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #1
This example illustrates a simple multi-cost ALTO transaction. The
ALTO Server provides two Cost Types, "routingcost" and "shoesize",
both in "numerical" mode. The Client wants the entire Multi-Cost
Map. The Server does not know the value of "routingcost" between
PID2 and PID3, and hence returns the value 'null' for "routingcost"
between PID2 and PID3.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
POST /multi/costmap/filtered" HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: 206
{
"multi-cost-types": [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: 549
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"cost-type" : {},
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1":[1,0], "PID2":[4,3], "PID3":[10,2] },
"PID2": { "PID1":[15,5], "PID2":[1,0], "PID3":[null,9] },
"PID3": { "PID1":[20,12], "PID2":[null,1], "PID3":[1,0] }
}
}
5.3. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #2
This example uses constraints to restrict the returned source/
destination PID pairs to those with "routingcost" between 5 and 10,
or "shoesize" equal to 0.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
POST /multi/costmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: 333
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
],
"or-constraints" : [ ["[0] ge 5", "[0] le 10"],
["[1] eq 0"] ]
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ "PID1", "PID2" ],
"dsts" : [ "PID1", "PID2", "PID3" ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: 461
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"cost-type" : {},
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": [1,0], "PID3": [10,5] },
"PID2": { "PID2": [1,0] }
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
5.4. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #3
This example uses extended constraints to limit the response to cost
points with ("routingcost" <= 10 and "shoesize" <= 2), or else
("routingcost" <= 3 and "shoesize" <= 6). Unlike the previous
example, the Client is only interested in the "routingcost" cost
type, and uses the "cost-type" parameter instead of "multi-cost-
types" to tell the Server to return scalar costs instead of array
costs.
In this example, "[0]" means the constraint applies to "routingcost"
because that is the first cost type in the "testable-cost-types"
parameter. (If "testable-cost-types" is omitted, it is assumed to be
the same as "multi-cost-types".) The choice of using an index to
refer to cost types aims at minimizing the length of the expression
of constraints, especially for those combining several OR and AND
expressions. It was also the shortest path from the constraints
design in [RFC7285].
POST /multi/multicostmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: 390
{
"cost-type" : {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"
},
"testable-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: 368
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"cost-type" : {
"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"
}
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": 1, "PID3": 10 },
"PID2": { "PID2": 1 },
"PID3": { "PID3": 1 }
}
}
5.5. Multi-Cost Filtered Cost Map: Example #4
This example uses extended constraints to limit the response to cost
points with ("routingcost" <= 10 and "shoesize" <= 2), or else
("routingcost" <= 3 and "shoesize" <= 6). In this example, the
Client is interested in the "routingcost" and "sceneryrate" cost
metrics, but not in the "shoesize" metric:
POST /multi/extn/costmap/filtered HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-costmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-costmapfilter+json
Content-Length: 461
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "sceneryrate"}
],
"testable-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"pids" : {
"srcs" : [ ],
"dsts" : [ ]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/alto-costmap+json
Content-Length: 481
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "my-default-network-map",
"tag": "3ee2cb7e8d63d9fab71b9b34cbf764436315542e"
}
],
"cost-type" : {},
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "sceneryrate"}
]
}
"cost-map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": [1,16] "PID3": [10,19] },
"PID2": { "PID2": [1,8] },
"PID3": { "PID3": [1,19] }
}
}
5.6. Endpoint Cost Service
This example uses the Endpoint Cost Service to retrieve the
"routingcost" and "shoesize" for selected endpoints, limiting the
response to costs with either low shoesize and reasonable routingcost
(shoesize <= 2 and routingcost <= 10), or else low routingcost and
reasonable shoesize (routingcost <= 3 and shoesize <= 6).
POST /multi/endpointcost/lookup HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-endpointcost+json,
application/alto-error+json
Content-Type: application/alto-endpoincostparams+json
Content-Length: 455
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
{
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
],
"or-constraints": [
["[0] le 10", "[1] le 2"],
["[0] le 3", "[1] le 6"]
],
"endpoints" : {
"srcs": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.2", "ipv6:2001:db8::1:0 ],
"dsts": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.89",
"ipv4:198.51.100.34",
"ipv4:203.0.113.45",
"ipv6:2001:db8::10"
]
}
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 419
Content-Type: application/alto-endpointcost+json
{
"meta" : {
"multi-cost-types" : [
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "routingcost"},
{"cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "shoesize"}
]
}
"endpoint-cost-map" : {
"ipv4:192.0.2.2": {
"ipv4:192.0.2.89": [15, 5],
"ipv4:203.0.113.45": [4, 23]
}
"ipv6:2001:db8::1:0": {
"ipv4:198.51.100.34": [16, 5],
"ipv6:2001:db8::10": [10, 2]
}
}
}
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not define any new media types or introduce any
new IANA considerations.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
7. Privacy And Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any privacy or security issues not
already present in the ALTO protocol.
The Multi-Cost optimization even tends to reduce the on the wire data
exchange volume, compared to multiple single cost ALTO transactions.
Likewise, the risk related to massive Multi-Cost requests is
moderated by the fact that Multi-Cost constraints additionally filter
ALTO Server responses and thus reduce their volume.
Note that, because queries for multiple metrics represent a stronger
fingerprinting signal than queries for a single metric,
implementations of this protocol may leak more information about the
ALTO client than would occur with a succession of individual queries.
Though, in many cases it would already be possible to link those
queries by using the source IP address or other existing information.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Richard Alimi, Fred Baker, Dhruv
Dhodi, Vijay Gurbani, Dave Mac Dysan, Young Lee, Richard Yang, for
fruitful discussions and feedback on this document and previous
versions. Gao Kai, Hans Seidel, Richard Yang, Qiao Xiang and Wang
Xin provided substantial review feedback and suggestions to the
protocol design.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7285] Almi, R., Penno, R., Yang, Y., Kiesel, S., Previdi, S.,
Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy, "Application-Layer
Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol", RFC 7285, September
2014.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5693] "Application Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem
Statement", October 2009.
[RFC6708] "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
Requirements", February 2012.
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Multi-Cost ALTO April 2017
Authors' Addresses
Sabine Randriamasy
Nokia Bell Labs
Route de Villejust
NOZAY 91460
FRANCE
Email: Sabine.Randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com
Wendy Roome
Nokia Bell Labs
124 Burlington Rd
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA
Email: ietf@wdroome.com
Nico Schwan
Thales Deutschland
Lorenzstrasse 10
Stuttgart 70435
Germany
Email: nico.schwan@thalesgroup.com
Randriamasy, et al. Expires October 29, 2017 [Page 27]
