Internet DRAFT - draft-roome-alto-unified-props
draft-roome-alto-unified-props
ALTO WG W. Roome
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track July 5, 2015
Expires: January 6, 2016
Extensible Property Maps for the ALTO Protocol
draft-roome-alto-unified-props-00
Abstract
This document extends the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(ALTO) Protocol [RFC7285] by generalizing the concept of "endpoint
properties" to other entity domains, and by presenting those
properties as maps, similar to the network and cost maps in ALTO.
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].
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 January 6, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Entity Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Property Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Relationship to Network Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Entity Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Internet Address Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. IPV4 Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. IPV6 Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3. Heirarchy And Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.4. Relationship To Network Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. PID Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Domain Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Domain-Specific Entity Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Heirarchy And Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. Relationship To Internet Addresses Domains . . . . . . 9
3.3. Internet Address Properties vs. PID Properties . . . . . . 10
4. Property Map Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. HTTP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Filtered Property Map Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. HTTP Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Accept Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5. Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Impact On Legacy Servers And Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Impact on Endpoint Property Service . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Impact on Resource-Specific Properties . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. Impact on the "pid" Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. Impact on Other Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Network Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Property Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. Information Resource Directory (IRD) . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.4. Property Map Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.5. Filtered Property Map Example #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.6. Filtered Property Map Example #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.7. Filtered Property Map Example #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. application/alto-* Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. ALTO Entity Domain Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.3. ALTO Endpoint Property Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
1. Introduction
The ALTO protocol [RFC7285] introduced the concept of "properties"
attached to "endpoint addresses." While useful, this concept has at
least two limitations.
First, it only allowed properties to be associated with a particular
domain of entities, namely individual IP addresses. It is reasonable
to think that collections of endpoints, as defined by CIDRs or PIDs,
may also have properties. Furthermore, recent proposals
([ID-draft-yang-alto-topology-06] and
[ID-draft-yang-alto-path-vector-00]) have suggested new classes of
entities with properties. The Endpoint Property Service as defined
in RFC7285 is limited to properties associated with individual
endpoints, and cannot be extended to new entity domains. Instead,
new services, with new request and response messages, would have to
be defined for each new entity domain.
Second, the ALTO Endpoint Property Service is only defined as a POST-
mode service. Clients must request the properties for an explicit
set of addresses. While [RFC7285] defines a GET-mode Cost Map
resource which returns all available costs, so a client can get the
full set of costs once, and then lookup costs without querying the
ALTO server, ALTO does not define an equivalent service for endpoint
properties. Granted, it is not be practical to enumerate the
properties for every possible internet address. But it is unlikely a
property will be defined for every possible address. It is very
likely that properties will only be defined for a subset of
addresses, and that subset would be small enough to enumerate. This
is particularly true if blocks of addresses with a common prefix
(e.g., a CIDR) have the same value for a property. Furthermore,
entities in other domains may very well be enumerable.
This document proposes a new approach to ALTO properties.
Specifically, it defines two new resource types, namely Property Maps
and Filtered Property Maps. The former are GET-mode resources which
return the property values for all entities in a domain, and are
analogous the ALTO's Network Map and Cost Map resources. The latter
are POST-mode resources which return the values for a set of
properties and entities requested by the client, and are analogous to
ALTO's Filtered Network Maps and Filtered Cost Maps.
Entity domains and property names are extensible, so that new domains
can be defined without revising the messages defined in this
document, in the same way that new cost metrics and new endpoint
properties can be defined without revising the messages defined by
the ALTO protocol.
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
This proposal would subsume the Endpoint Property Service defined in
RFC7285, although that service may be retained for legacy clients
(see Section 6).
2. Definitions and Concepts
2.1. Entities
An entity is an object with a (possibly empty) set of properties.
Every entity is in a domain, such as the IPv4 and IPv6 domains.
2.2. Domains
A domain is a family of entities. Examples are the internet address
and PID domains (see Section 3.1 and Section 3.2). Another example
is the proposed domain of Abstract Network Elements associated with
topology and routing, as suggested by
[ID-draft-yang-alto-path-vector-00].
2.3. Entity Addresses
Every entity has a name of the form:
domain-name : domain-specific-entity-address
Examples include "ipv4:1.2.3.4" and "ipv6:1234::".
The type EntityAddr denotes a JSON string with an entity address in
this format.
The format of the second part of the entity address depends on the
domain, and must be specified when registering a new domain.
Addresses may be hierarchical, and properties may be inherited based
on that hierarchy. Again, the rules defining any hierarchy or
inheritance must be defined when the domain is registered.
Note that entity addresses do NOT have a unique textual
representation. For example, the strings "ipv6:::1" and "ipv6:0:0:0:
0:0:0:0:1" refer to the same entity.
2.4. Domain Names
Each domain has a unique name. The name MUST be no more than 32
characters, and it MUST NOT contain characters other than US-ASCII
alphanumeric characters (U+0030-U+0039, U+0041-U+005A, and U+0061-
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
U+007A), the hyphen ('-', U+002D), or the low line ('_', U+005F).
For example, the names "ipv4" and "ipv6" identify objects in the
internet address domain (Section 3.1).
The type DomainName denotes a JSON string with a domain name in this
format.
Domain names must be registered with the IANA, and the format of the
entity addresses in that domain, as well as any hierarchical or
inheritance rules for those entities, must be specified at the same
time.
2.5. Property Names
The space of property names associated with entities defined by this
document is the same as, and is shared with, the endpoint property
names defined by [RFC7285]. Thus entity property names are as
defined in Section 10.8.2 of that document, and must be registered
with the "ALTO Endpoint Property Type Registry" defined in Section
14.3 of that document.
The type PropertyName denotes a JSON string with a property name in
this format.
Property names are not specific to a domain, although some properties
may only be applicable for particular domains, and the interpretation
of the value may depend on the domain. For example, suppose the
"geo-location" property is defined as the coordinates of a point,
encoded as (say) "latitude longitude [altitude]." When applied to an
entity that represents a specific host computer, such as an internet
address, the property defines the host's location. When applied to
an entity that represents a set of computers, such as a CIDR, the
property would be the location of the center of that set. If it is
necessary to represent the bounding box of a set of hosts, another
property, such as "geo-region", should be defined.
2.6. Relationship to Network Maps
[RFC7285] recognized that some properties may be specific to another
ALTO resource, such as a network map. Accordingly [RFC7285] defined
the concept of "resource-specific endpoint properties" (Section
10.8.1), and indicated that dependency by prefixing the property name
with the ID of the resource on which it depends. That document
defined one resource-specific property, namely the "pid" property,
whose value was the name of the name of the PID containing that
endpoint in the associated network map.
This document also recognizes that some properties may be specific to
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
resources such as network maps, but takes a different syntactic
approach. Instead of associating the resource dependency with a
property, this document takes the position that the dependency is
determined by the entity domain, not the property, and is shared by
all entries in that domain. For example, the Abstract Network
Elements suggested by [ID-draft-yang-alto-path-vector-00] are defined
in the context of a network map. If an ALTO server offers two
separate network maps, there would be two separate spaces of Abstract
Network Elements, one for each network map.
Therefore instead of qualifying a property name with the ID of the
resource on which it depends, this document associates the dependent
resource(s) with the property map as a whole, via the "uses"
mechanism defined in Section 9.1.5 of [RFC7285]. Thus all entities
and properties in any given property map depend on those
resources(s).
According to [RFC7285], an ALTO server with two network maps, with
resource IDs "net1" and "net2", could offer a single Endpoint
Property Service for the two properties "net1.pid" and "net2.pid".
Instead, an ALTO server which supports the extensions in this
document would offer two different property maps for the "pid"
property, one depending on "net1", the other on "net2".
3. Entity Domains
This document defines the following entity domains.
3.1. Internet Address Domains
The domain of internet addresses consists of two domains (IPv4 and
IPv6). Both domains include individual addresses and blocks of
addresses.
3.1.1. IPV4 Domain
3.1.1.1. Domain Name
ipv4
3.1.1.2. Domain-Specific Entity Addresses
Individual addresses are strings as specified by the IPv4Addresses
rule of Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986]. Blocks of addresses are prefix-
match strings as specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC4632].
For the purpose of defining properties, an individual internet
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
address and the corresponding 32-bit prefix are considered aliases
for the same entity. That is, "ipv4:10.0.0.0" and "ipv4:10.0.0.0/32"
are equivalent, and have the same set of properties.
3.1.2. IPV6 Domain
3.1.2.1. Domain Name
ipv6
3.1.2.2. Domain-Specific Entity Addresses
Individual addresses are strings as specified by Section 4 of
[RFC5952]. Blocks of addresses are prefix-match strings as specified
in Section 7 of [RFC5952].
For the purpose of defining properties, an individual internet
address and the corresponding 128-bit prefix are considered aliases
for the same entity. That is, "ipv6:::1" and "ipv:::1/128" are
equivalent, and have the same set of properties.
3.1.3. Heirarchy And Inheritance
Both domains allow property values to be inherited. Specifically, if
a property P is not defined for a specific internet address IP, but P
is defined for some block C which prefix-matches IP, then the address
IP inherits the value of P defined for block C. If more than one such
block defines a value for P, IP inherits the value of P in the block
with the longest prefix.
Address blocks can also inherit properties: if property P is not
defined for a block C, but is defined for some block C' prefix-
matches C, and C' has a shorter mask than C, then block C inherits
the property from C'. If there are several such blocks C', C
inherits from the block with the longest prefix.
As an example, suppose that a server defines the property P for the
following entities:
ipv4:10.0.0.0/8: P=v1
ipv4:10.0.0.0/16: P=v2
ipv4:10.0.0.0/24: P=v3
ipv4:10.0.0.0: P=v4
Defined Property Values
Then the following entities have the indicated values:
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
ipv4:10.0.0.0: P=v4
ipv4:10.0.0.1: P=v3
ipv4:10.0.1.0: P=v2
ipv4:10.1.0.0: P=v2
ipv4:11.0.0.0: (not defined)
ipv4:10.0.0.0/28: P=v3
ipv4:10.0.1.0/28: P=v2
ipv4:10.0.0.0/12: P=v1
ipv4:10.0.0.0/6: (not defined)
Inherited Property Values
3.1.4. Relationship To Network Maps
An internet address domain may or may not be associated with an ALTO
network map resource. Logically, there is a map of internet address
entities to property values for each network map defined by the ALTO
server, plus an additional property map for internet address entities
which are not associated with a network map. These maps are separate
from each other. The prefixes in the property map do not have to
correspond to the prefixes defining the network map's PIDs. For
example, the property map for a network map may assign properties to
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/8" even if that prefix is not associated with any PID
in the network map.
3.2. PID Domain
The PID domain associates property values with the PIDs in a network
map. Accordingly, this domain always depends on a network map.
3.2.1. Domain Name
pid
3.2.2. Domain-Specific Entity Addresses
The entity addresses are the PID names of the associated network map.
3.2.3. Heirarchy And Inheritance
There is no hierarchy or inheritance for properties associated with
PIDs.
3.2.4. Relationship To Internet Addresses Domains
The PID domain and the internet address domains are completely
independent; the properties associated with a PID have no relation to
the properties associated with the prefixes or endpoint addresses in
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
that PID. An ALTO server MAY choose to assign some or all properties
of a PID to the prefixes in that PID, but is not required to do so.
For example, suppose "PID1" consists of the prefix "ipv4:10.0.0.0/8",
and has the property P" with value "v1". In internet address
entities "ipv4:10.0.0.0" and "ipv4:10.0.0.0/8" may or may not have a
value for the property "P", and if they do, it is not necessarily
"v1".
3.3. Internet Address Properties vs. PID Properties
Because the internet address and PID domains are completely separate,
the question may arise as to which domain is best for a property. In
general, the internet address domain is best for properties that are
closely related to the internet address, or which are associated
with, and inherited through, blocks of addresses.
The PID domain is best for properties that arise from the definition
of the PID, rather than from the internet address prefixes in that
PID.
For example, because internet addresses are allocated to server
providers by blocks of prefixes, an "ISP" property would be best
associated with the internet address domain. On the other hand, a
property that explains why a PID was formed, or how it relates the a
provider's network, would best be associated with the PID domain.
4. Property Map Resource
A Property Map returns the properties defined for all entities in one
of more domains.
Section 7.4 gives an example of a property map request and response.
4.1. Media Type
The media type of an ALTO Property Map resource is "application/
alto-propmap+json".
4.2. HTTP Method
An ALTO Property Map resource is requested using the HTTP GET method.
4.3. Accept Input Parameters
None.
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
4.4. Capabilities
The capabilities are defined by an object of type
PropertyMapCapabilities:
object {
DomainName domain-types<1..*>;
PropertyName prop-types<1..*>;
} PropertyMapCapabilities;
where "domain-types" is an array with the domains of the entities in
this property map, and "prop-types" is an array with the names of the
properties returned for entities in those domains.
4.5. Uses
An array with the resource ID(s) of resource(s) with which the
domains in this map are associated. In most cases, this array will
have at most one ID, and it will be for a network map resource.
4.6. Response
If the domains in this property map depend on other resources, the
"dependent-vtags" field in the "meta" field of the response MUST be
an array that includes the version tags of those resources.
The data component of a Property Map response is named "property-
map", which is a JSON object of type PropertyMapData, where:
object {
PropertyMapData property-map;
} InfoResourceProperties : ResponseEntityBase;
object-map {
EntityAddr -> EntityProps;
} PropertyMapData;
object {
PropertyName -> JSONValue;
} EntityProps;
The ResponseEntityBase type is defined in Section 8.4 of [RFC7285].
Specifically, a PropertyMapData object has one member for each entity
in the Property Map. The entity's properties are encoded in the
corresponding EntityProps object. EntityProps encodes one name/value
pair for each property, where the property names are encoded as
strings of type PropertyName. A protocol implementation SHOULD
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
assume that the property value is either a JSONString or a JSON
"null" value, and fail to parse if it is not, unless the
implementation is using an extension to this document that indicates
when and how property values of other data types are signaled.
For each entity in the Property Map, the ALTO Server returns the
value defined for each of the properties specified in this resource's
"capabilities" list. For efficiency, the ALTO Server SHOULD omit
property values that are inherited rather than explicitly defined; if
a client needs inherited values, the client SHOULD use the domain's
inheritance rules to deduce those values.
An ALTO Server MAY explicitly define a property as not having a value
for a particular entity. That is, a server may say that a property
is "defined to have no value", as opposed to the property being
"undefined". If that entity would inherit a value for that property,
then the ALTO server MUST return a "null" value for that property,
and an ALTO client MUST recognize a "null" value means "do not apply
the inheritance rules for this property." If the entity would not
inherit a value, the ALTO server MAY return "null" or MAY just omit
the property.
If the ALTO Server does not define any properties for an entity, then
the server MAY omit that entity from the response.
5. Filtered Property Map Resource
A Filtered Property Map returns the values of a set of properties for
a set of entities selected by the client.
Section 7.5, Section 7.6 and Section 7.7 give examples of filtered
property map requests and responses.
5.1. Media Type
The media type of an ALTO Property Map resource is "application/
alto-propmap+json".
5.2. HTTP Method
An ALTO Property Map resource is requested using the HTTP POST
method.
5.3. Accept Input Parameters
The input parameters for a Filtered Property Map request are supplied
in the entity body of the POST request. This document specifies the
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
input parameters with a data format indicated by the media type
"application/alto-propmapparams+json", which is a JSON object of type
ReqFilteredPropertyMap:
object {
EntityAddr entities<1..*>
PropertyName properties<1..*>;
} ReqFilteredPropertyMap;
with fields:
entities: List of entity addresses for which the specified
properties are to be returned. The ALTO server MUST interpret
entries appearing multiple times as if they appeared only once.
The domain of each entity MUST be included in the list of domains
in this resource's "capabilities" field (Section 5.4).
properties: List of properties to be returned for each entity. Each
specified property MUST be included in the list of properties in
this resource's "capabilities" field (Section 5.4). The ALTO
server MUST interpret entries appearing multiple times as if they
appeared only once.
Note that the "entities" and "properties" fields MUST have at
least one entry each.
5.4. Capabilities
The capabilities are defined by an object of type
PropertyMapCapabilities, as defined in Section 4.4.
5.5. Uses
An array with the resource ID(s) of resource(s) with which the
domains in this map are associated. In most cases, this array will
have at most one ID, and it will be for a network map resource.
5.6. Response
The response is the same as for the property map (Section 4.6),
except that it only includes the entities and properties requested by
the client.
Also, the Filtered Property Map response MUST include all inherited
property values for the specified entities (unlike the Full Property
Map, the Filtered Property Map response does not include enough
information for the client to calculate the inherited values).
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
6. Impact On Legacy Servers And Clients
6.1. Impact on Endpoint Property Service
The property maps defined in this document provide the same
functionality as the Endpoint Property Service (EPS) defined in
Section 11.4 of [RFC7285]. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the
EPS be deprecated in favor of property maps. However, ALTO servers
MAY provide an EPS for the benefit of legacy clients.
6.2. Impact on Resource-Specific Properties
Section 10.8 of [RFC7285] defines two categories of endpoint
properties: "resource-specific" and "global". Resource-specific
property names are prefixed with the ID of the resource they depended
upon, while global property names have no such prefix. The property
map resources defined in this document do not distinguish between
those two types of properties. Instead, if there is a dependency, it
is indicated by the "uses" capability of a property map, and is
shared by all properties and entity domains in that map.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that resource-specific endpoint
properties be deprecated, and no new resource-specific endpoint
properties be defined.
6.3. Impact on the "pid" Property
Section 7.1.1 of [RFC7285] defines the resource-specific endpoint
property "pid", whose value is the name of the PID containing that
endpoint. For compatibility with legacy clients, an ALTO server
which provides the "pid" property via the Endpoint Property Service
MUST use that definition, and that syntax, in the EPS resource.
However, when used with property maps, this document amends the
definition of the "pid" property as follows.
First, the name of the property is simply "pid"; the name is not
prefixed with the resource ID of a network map. The "uses"
capability of the property map resource indicates the associated
network map. This implies that a property map can only return the
"pid" property for one network map; if an ALTO server provides
several network maps, it must provide a property map resource for
each one.
Second, a client MAY request the "pid" property for a block of
addresses. An ALTO server determines the value of "pid" for an
address block C as follows. Let CS be the set of all address blocks
in the network map. If C is in CS, then the value of "pid" is the
name of the PID associated with C. Otherwise, find the longest block
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
C' in CS such that C' prefix-matches C, but is shorter than C. If
there is such a block C', the value of "pid" is the name of the PID
associated with C'. If not, then "pid" has no value for block C.
Note that although an ALTO server MAY provide a GET-mode property map
resource which returns the entire map for the "pid" property, there
is no need to do so, because that map is simply the inverse of the
network map.
6.4. Impact on Other Properties
In general, there should be little or no impact on other previously
defined properties. The only consideration is that properties can
now be defined on blocks of addresses, rather than just individual
addresses, which might change the semantics of a property.
7. Examples
7.1. Network Map
The examples in this section use a very simple default network map:
defaultpid: ipv4:0.0.0.0/0 ipv6:::0/0
pid1: ipv4:10.0.0.0/8
pid2: ipv4:10.0.0.0/16 ipv4:10.1.0.0/16
Figure 1: Example Network Map
7.2. Property Definitions
The examples in this section use four additional properties, "ISP",
"ASN", "country" and "state", with the following values:
ISP ASN country state
ipv4:10.0.0.0/8: MyISP - us -
ipv4:10.0.0.0/16: - 12345 - NJ
ipv4:10.0.0.0: - - - PA
ipv4:10.1.0.0/16: - 12345 - CT
Figure 2: Example Property Values
7.3. Information Resource Directory (IRD)
The following IRD defines the relavent resources of the ALTO server.
It provides two Property Map resources, one for the "ISP" and "ASN"
properties, and another for the "country" and "state" properties.
The server could have provided a Property Map resource for all four
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
properties, but did not, presumably because the organization that
runs the ALTO server believes any given client is not interested in
all four properties.
The server provides two Filtered Property Maps. The first returns
all four properties, and the second just returns the "pid" property
for the default network map.
The Property Maps for the "ISP", "ASN", "country" and "state"
properties do not depend on the default network map (they do not have
a "uses" capability), because the definitions of those properties do
not depend on the default network map. The Filtered Property Map for
the "pid" property does have a "uses" capability for the default
network map, because that defines the values of the "pid" property.
Note that for legacy clients, the ALTO server provides an Endpoint
Property Service for the "pid" property for the default network map.
"meta": { ... },
"resources" : {
"default-network-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap",
"media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json"
},
.... cost map resources ....
"country-state-property-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/propmap/full/inet-cs",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"capabilities" : {
"domain-types": [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
"prop-types" : [ "country", "state" ]
}
},
"isp-asn-property-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/propmap/full/inet-ia",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"capabilities" : {
"domain-types": [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
"prop-types" : [ "ISP", "ASN" ]
}
},
"iacs-property-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/propmap/lookup/inet-iacs",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accepts" : "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"capabilities" : {
"domain-types": [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
"prop-types" : [ "ISP", "ASN", "country", "state" ]
}
},
"pid-property-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/propmap/lookup/pid",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accepts" : "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"uses" : [ "default-network-map" ]
"capabilities" : {
"domain-types": [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
"prop-types" : [ "pid" ]
}
},
"legacy-pid-property" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/legacy/eps-pid",
"media-type" : "application/alto-endpointprop+json",
"accepts" : "application/alto-endpointpropparams+json",
"capabilities" : {
"prop-types" : [ "default-network-map.pid" ]
}
}
}
Example IRD
7.4. Property Map Example
The following example uses the properties and IRD defined above to
retrieve a property map for entities with the "ISP" and "ASN"
properties. Note that the response does not include the entity
"ipv4:10.0.0.0", because it does not have a value for either of those
properties. Also note that the entities "ipv4:10.0.0.0/16" and
"ipv4:10.1.0.0/16" are refinements of "ipv4:10.0.0.0/8", and hence
inherit its value for "ISP" property. But because that value is
inherited, it is not explicitly listed in the property map.
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
GET /propmap/full/inet-ia HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-propmap+json,application/alto-error+json
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"property-map": {
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/8": {"ISP: "BitsRus"},
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/16": {"ASN": "12345"},
"ipv4:10.1.0.0/16": {"ASN": "12345"}
}
}
7.5. Filtered Property Map Example #1
The following example uses the Filtered Property Map resource to
request the "ISP", "ASN" and "state" properties for several IPv4
addresses. Note that the value of "state" for "ipv4:10.0.0.0" is the
only explicitly defined property; the other values are all derived by
the inheritance rules for internet address entities.
POST /propmap/lookup/inet-iacs HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-propmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmapparams+json
{
"entities" : [ "ipv4:10.0.0.0", "ipv4:10.0.0.1", "ipv4:10.2.0.1" ],
"properties" : [ "ISP", "ASN", "state" ]
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"property-map": {
"ipv4:10.0.0.0": {"ISP": "MyISP", "ASN": "12345", "state": "PA"},
"ipv4:10.0.0.1": {"ISP": "MyISP", "ASN": "12345", "state": "NJ"},
"ipv4:10.1.0.0": {"ISP": "MyISP", "ASN": "12345", "state": "CT"}
}
}
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
7.6. Filtered Property Map Example #2
The following example uses the Filtered Property Map resource to
request the "ASN", "country" and "state" properties for several IPv4
prefixes. Note that none of the returned property values were
explicitly defined; all values are derived by the inheritance rules
for internet address entities.
Also note the "ASN" property has the value "12345" for both the
blocks "ipv4:10.0.0.0/16" and "ipv4:10.1.0.0/16", so every address in
the block "ipv4:10.0.0.0/15" has that property value. However the
block "ipv4:10.0.0.0/15" itself does not have a value for "ASN":
address blocks cannot inherit properties from blocks with longer
prefixes, even if every such block has the same value.
POST /propmap/lookup/inet-iacs HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-propmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmapparams+json
{
"entities" : [ "ipv4:10.0.0.0/10",
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/15",
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/17" ],
"properties" : [ "ASN","country", "state" ]
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"meta" : {
"dependent-vtags" : [
{"resource-id": "default-network-map",
"tag": "7915dc0290c2705481c491a2b4ffbec482b3cf62"}
]
},
"property-map": {
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/10": {"country": "us"},
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/15": {"country": "us"},
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/17": {"ASN": "12345",
"country": "us",
"state": "NJ"}
}
}
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
7.7. Filtered Property Map Example #3
The following example uses the Filtered Property Map resource to
request the "pid" property for several IPv4 addresses and prefixes.
Note that the value of "pid" for the prefix "ipv4:10.0.0.0/15" is
"pid1", even though all addresses in that block are in "pid2",
because "ipv4:10.0.0.0/8" is the longest prefix in the network map
which prefix-matches "ipv4:10.0.0.0/15", and that prefix is in
"pid1".
POST /propmap/lookup/pid HTTP/1.1
Host: alto.example.com
Accept: application/alto-propmap+json,application/alto-error+json
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmapparams+json
{
"entities" : [
"ipv4:10.0.0.0",
"ipv4:10.1.0.0",
"ipv4:10.3.0.0",
"ipv4:11.0.0.0",
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/15",
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/17" ],
"properties" : [ "pid" ]
}
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: ###
Content-Type: application/alto-propmap+json
{
"property-map": {
"ipv4:10.0.0.0": {"pid": "pid2"},
"ipv4:10.1.0.0": {"pid": "pid2"},
"ipv4:10.3.0.0": {"pid": "pid1"},
"ipv4:11.0.0.0": {"pid": "defaultpid"},
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/15": {"pid": "pid1"},
"ipv4:10.0.0.0/17": {"pid": "pid2"}
}
}
8. Security Considerations
As discussed in Section 15 of [RFC7285], properties may have
sensitive customer-specific information. If this is the case, an
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
ALTO Server may limit access to those properties by providing several
different property maps. For non-sensitive properties, the ALTO
Server would provide a URI which accepts requests from any client.
Sensitive properties, on the other hand, would only be available via
a secure URI which would require client authentication.
Also, while technically this document does not introduce any security
risks not inherent in the Endpoint Property Service defined by
[RFC7285], the GET-mode property map resource defined in this
document does make it easier for a client to download large numbers
of property values. Accordingly, an ALTO Server should limit GET-
mode property maps for to properties which do not contain sensitive
data.
9. IANA Considerations
This document defines additional application/alto-* media types, and
extends the ALTO endpoint property registry.
9.1. application/alto-* Media Types
This document registers two additional ALTO media types, listed in
Table 1.
+-------------+-------------------------+---------------+
| Type | Subtype | Specification |
+-------------+-------------------------+---------------+
| application | alto-propmap+json | Section 4.1 |
| application | alto-propmapparams+json | Section 5.3 |
+-------------+-------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Additional ALTO Media Types
Type name: application
Subtype name: This documents registers multiple subtypes, as listed
in Table 1.
Required parameters: n/a
Optional parameters: n/a
Encoding considerations: Encoding considerations are identical to
those specified for the "application/json" media type. See
[RFC7159].
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
Security considerations: Security considerations relating to the
generation and consumption of ALTO Protocol messages are discussed
in Section 15 of [RFC7285].
Interoperability considerations: This document specifies format of
conforming messages and the interpretation thereof.
Published specification: This document is the specification for
these media types; see Table 1 for the section documenting each
media type.
Applications that use this media type: ALTO servers and ALTO clients
either stand alone or are embedded within other applications.
Additional information:
Magic number(s): n/a
File extension(s): This document uses the mime type to refer to
protocol messages and thus does not require a file extension.
Macintosh file type code(s): n/a
Person & email address to contact for further information: See
Authors' Addresses section.
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: n/a
Author: See Authors' Addresses section.
Change controller: Internet Engineering Task Force
(mailto:iesg@ietf.org).
9.2. ALTO Entity Domain Registry
This document requests IANA to create and maintain the "ALTO Entity
Domain Registry", listed in Table 2.
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Identifier | Entity Address Encoding | Hierarchy & Inheritance |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| ipv4 | See Section 3.1.1 | See Section 3.1.3 |
| ipv6 | See Section 3.1.2 | See Section 3.1.3 |
| pid | See Section 3.2 | None |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
Table 2: ALTO Entity Domain Names
This registry serves two purposes. First, it ensures uniqueness of
identifiers referring to ALTO entity domains. Second, it states the
requirements for allocated domain names.
New ALTO entity domains are assigned after IETF Review [RFC5226] to
ensure that proper documentation regarding the new ALTO entity
domains and their security considerations has been provided. RFCs
defining new entity domains should indicate how an entity in a
registered domain is encoded as an EntityName, and, if applicable,
the rules defining the entity hierarchy and property inheritance.
Updates and deletions of ALTO entity domains follow the same
procedure.
Registered ALTO entity domain identifiers MUST conform to the
syntactical requirements specified in Section 2.4. Identifiers are
to be recorded and displayed as strings.
Requests to add a new value to the registry MUST include the
following information:
o Identifier: The name of the desired ALTO entity domain.
o Entity Address Encoding: The procedure for encoding the address of
an entity of the registered type as an EntityAddr (see
Section 2.3).
o Hierarchy: If the entities form a hierarchy, the procedure for
determining that hierarchy.
o Inheritance: If entities can inherit property values from other
entities, the procedure for determining that inheritance.
o Security Considerations: In some usage scenarios, entity addresses
carried in ALTO Protocol messages may reveal information about an
ALTO client or an ALTO service provider. Applications and ALTO
service providers using addresses of the registered type should be
made aware of how (or if) the addressing scheme relates to private
information and network proximity.
This specification requests registration of the identifiers "ipv4",
"ipv6" and "pid", as shown in Table 2.
9.3. ALTO Endpoint Property Type Registry
The ALTO Endpoint Property Type Registry was created by [RFC7285].
If possible, the name of that registry should be changed to "ALTO
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
Entity Property Type Registry", to indicate that it is not restricted
to Endpoint Properties. If it is not feasible to change the name,
the description must be amended to indicate that it registers
properties in all domains, rather than just the internet address
domain.
10. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", RFC 4632, BCP 122, August 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, BCP 26,
May 2008.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
[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.
[ID-draft-yang-alto-path-vector-00]
Bernstein, G., Lee, Y., Roome, W., Scharf, M., and Y.
Yang, "ALTO Topology Extension: Path Vector as a Cost
Mode", March 2015.
[ID-draft-yang-alto-topology-06]
Bernstein, G., Lee, Y., Roome, W., Scharf, M., and Y.
Yang, "ALTO Topology Extensions: Node-Link Graphs",
March 2015.
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Unified Properties July 2015
Author's Address
Wendy Roome
Alcatel-Lucent/Bell Labs
600 Mountain Ave, Rm 3B-324
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
USA
Phone: +1-908-582-7974
Email: w.roome@alcatel-lucent.com
Roome Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 25]
