Scharf, Michael (Michael | 27 Mar 00:50 2015

Background on IANA registry for ALTO Endpoint Property Type?

Hi,

Does somebody with a memory better than mine recall why RFC 7285 mandates that endpoint properties are
assigned by IETF review (other than "priv:")? This results in a rather high bar and possibly in a large
number of RFCs as new use cases of ALTO emerge.

Why does RFC 7285 not use some simpler registration procedure, such as expert review?

At first sight, we could perhaps have avoided some of today's discussion if ALTO would not need IETF review
for each endpoint type that could possibly be useful in some ALTO deployments.

Thanks

Michael

Vijay K. Gurbani | 26 Mar 16:40 2015

Slide update and missing slides

Folks: We have updated the slides that were sent to us in the
last couple of days.

We still need slides for a couple of items.  Please get these to
us as soon as you can, preferably before noon.

Also, please take a look at the meeting material to make sure
your slide is the latest version that you sent us.

Thanks,

- vijay
--

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

Piotr Wydrych | 23 Mar 04:02 2015
Picon

Inter-ALTO

Hi All,

As some of you may remember, few years ago, long time before the 
protocol has been standardized, an idea of inter-ALTO communication has 
been proposed. As the protocol is now ready and extensions are beeing 
developed, I'd like to raise your attention to this communication scheme 
again :-)

Since it's not possible to discuss the proposal within 5', I'll raise 
some issues on the list.

1. The rationale
Some (maybe out-of-date) rationale can be found in 
draft-dulinski-alto-inter-problem-statement-01 from July 2011. For me, 
the two most important use-cases in which operators significantly may 
benefit from map exchange are (a) route assymmetry and (b) remote isp's 
preference.
Regarding (a), the core ALTO protocol focuses on comparing traffic 
destination endpoints (thanks to, e.g., data from BGP tables). If an 
ALTO server is aware of routes towards the AS it belongs to, it may 
compare traffic sources between each other. In (b), I assume that 
information form remote ASes may make endpoints from the same AS (e.g., 
assigned to the same PID due the same AS-PATH) distinguishable.

Since YMMV, I'd be glad to hear your voice to come out with a set of 
really important issues to be solved by inter-ALTO. I don't want to 
start an academic discussion and think of a lot of generic and specific 
use-cases.

2. General requirements
(Continue reading)

Huseyin ABACI | 22 Mar 11:31 2015
Picon

Final Extension - Call for Chapters: "Sustainable Computing"


FINAL EXTENSION - CALL FOR EBOOK CHAPTERS: "SUSTAINABLE COMPUTING"

-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEADLINES
Proposal Submission Deadline: 20 April 2015 (Extended)
Notification of Acceptance: 27 April 2015
Full Chapter Submission: 1 July 2015
Review Results Returned: 1 October 2015
Final Chapter Submission: 9 November 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------

We apologise if you get multiple copies of this message. 

Please forward this message to anyone who might be interested in our call.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

EBOOK CHAPTERS FOR 
Sustainable Computing

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION 
1-2 pages including abstract, chapter objectives, chapter outlines and institutional affiliation with
Microsoft Word format. Submit to huseyin.abaci <at> adu.edu.tr or c.peoples <at> ulster.ac.uk with the
subject title "Sustainable Computing - Chapter Proposal" until 20 April 2015.

EDITORS
Editor-in-Chief 
Huseyin Abaci Ph.D., Assistant Professor in Department of Computer Engineering at Adnan Menderes
University, Aydin, Turkey
Email: huseyin.abaci <at> adu.edu.tr 
(Continue reading)

Vijay K. Gurbani | 22 Mar 03:47 2015

Slides for ALTO meeting

Folks: Please send the slides to Jan, Enrico and me so we can
upload them.  You can always update and resend new versions (if
needed) later.

Please convert the slides to PDF and send us the PDF version only.

Thanks,

- vijay
--

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

Hans Seidel | 10 Mar 11:47 2015

ALTO implementation interoperability

Hi All,

we are currently working on an ALTO server implementation and want to 
test the current state regarding compatibility with the RFC 7285.

I took a look at the draft of the last Interop, which is 
"draft-gurbani-alto-interop-cases-02" if I am not mistaken, but it seems 
to me that some test cases are not compatible with the RFC. Please 
correct me if I am wrong.

Is there is another interop planned in the future based on the RFC?

Or maybe somebody else is working on an implementation and wants to test 
it as well. If so, feel free to contact me.

Cheers
Hans

Qiao Fu | 9 Mar 03:35 2015

转发: New Version Notification for draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase-04.txt

Hi, all. I have just updated the following draft. This draft proposes a usecase of ALTO in the NFV scenario.
And possible property extension is added and discussed in this update. Such extension may be included in
another draft: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext/
Your comments and suggestions are more than welcome. Thank you!

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts <at> ietf.org] 
发送时间: 2015年3月9日 10:27
收件人: Haibin Song; Qiao Fu; Qiao Fu; Haibin Song; Zhen Cao; Zehn Cao
主题: New Version Notification for draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase-04.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Qiao Fu and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase
Revision:	04
Title:		What's the Impact of Virtualization on Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)?
Document date:	2015-03-08
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase-04.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase-04
Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-fu-alto-nfv-usecase-04

Abstract:
   This documentation presents a use case of Application-Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO) with the emergence of Network Function
(Continue reading)

Hans Seidel | 17 Mar 10:03 2015

ALTO implementation interoperability

Hi All,

we are currently working on an ALTO server implementation and want to 
test the current state regarding compatibility with the RFC 7285.

I took a look at the draft of the last Interop, which is 
"draft-gurbani-alto-interop-cases-02" if I am not mistaken, but it seems 
to me that some test cases are not compatible with the RFC. Please 
correct me if I am wrong.

Is there is another interop planned in the future based on the RFC?

Or maybe somebody else is working on an implementation and wants to test 
it as well. If so, feel free to contact me.

Cheers
Hans

Vijay K. Gurbani | 16 Mar 17:23 2015

Draft agenda for Dallas IETF

Folks: The draft agenda for Dallas IETF is at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/agenda/agenda-92-alto

Please let the chairs know if there is an agenda request that is
not reflected.

The agenda is full and preference has been given to agenda work-
items and work items with list discussion.

Cheers,

- vijay
--

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

RANDRIAMASY, SABINE (SABINE | 13 Mar 17:51 2015

TR: New Version Notification for draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar-03.txt

Hi all,

We have posted a new version of the "ALTO Cost Calendar" extension proposal draft, that aims at broadening
 the decision possibilities of applications to not only decide 'where' to connect to, but also 'when'. 
The updates in this version aim at simplifying the protocol updates needed to support Calendared ALTO
Services. 

Our intent is to gauge the dispositions of this draft with respect to being a WG item. 
Please see our summary below. Any feedback and comments on the draft are welcome.

Thanks,
Sabine, Richard, Qin, Lingli and Nico 
-----------------------------------------------
In a nutshell, an ALTO Cost Calendar:

- allows Applications to carefully schedule their connections or data transfers
- allows ALTO Clients to schedule their ALTO Calendar requests themselves and thus save time and resources
- is applicable to time-sensitive ALTO metrics and applications that do not need immediate transfer 

The applicable service information resources are: Endpoint Cost Map (ECM), the Cost Map (CM) and Filtered
Cost Map (FCM) if the CM or FCM size is manageable

To support this, the extensions proposed in the ALTO Calendar draft:
- the structure of a Client request for an ALTO Calendar remains unchanged. 
- encodes Calendar costs values as an array of N time dependent values. For instance a diurnal cost value
pattern may be encoded in 12 values each applicable to an interval of 2 hours.
- adds fields in the IRD capabilities on the properties of the N time intervals (e.g.: num-intervals = 12,
time-interval-size = 2hours)
- conveys these properties in the "meta" of ALTO Server responses, together with calendar attribute
values on the start date and repetitiveness of the calendar. E.g. "repeat" : 4 if the current calendar
(Continue reading)

RANDRIAMASY, SABINE (SABINE | 13 Mar 14:46 2015

TR: New Version Notification for draft-randriamasy-alto-multi-cost-10.txt

Hi all,

We have posted a new version of the Multi-Cost ALTO extension proposal. This update aims at minimizing the
number of protocol updates needed to support Multi-Cost ALTO Services. 
Our intent is to gauge the dispositions of this draft with respect to being a WG item. 
Please see our summary below. Any feedback and comments on the draft is welcome.

Thanks, 
Sabine and Wendy

In a nutshell, the Multi-Cost (MC) ALTO extension: 
- allows to carry multiple cost metrics in a single ALTO request or response,
- allows to combine 'AND' and 'OR' logical operators on constraints, allowing requests such as for example
"give me costs among {those PIDs/Endpoints} that satisfy 'hopcount' = 0 OR routingcost in [5, 10]"
- proposes additional abstracted TE-related Cost metrics to score resources availabilities

Applicable service information resources are: Cost Map (CM), Filtered Cost Map (FCM), Endpoint Cost Map (ECM)

The updates proposed in the MC ALTO draft:
- stay with the same media types for MC service information resources
- the following fields are added: 

Capability fields:
      multi-cost-type-names:
              Array of cost type names. Presence means this resource can return
              a multi-cost. A filtered cost map resource can have either cost-type-names
              or multi-cost-type-names or both. Former means it can return a single
              cost, latter a multi cost. Client selects which.

              A full cost map resource has cost-type-names or multi-cost-type-names,
(Continue reading)


Gmane