Hi Richard,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Benoit Claise<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear all,
I've been reviewing draft-ietf-alto-reqs-14 and the following requirement
got me thinking:
REQ. ARv14-5: An ALTO client protocol MUST be extensible to enable
support of other host group descriptor types in future. An ALTO
client protocol specification MUST define an appropriate procedure
for adding new host group descriptor types, e.g., by establishing an
IANA registry.
Why don't you reuse an existing registry, in which you will have all the
Information Elements already defined instead of defining a new one?
WhatI have in mind: the IPFIX I.E. IANA registry.
The piece of information I see in draft-ietf-alto-reqs-14 are IP address,
prefix, BGP AS: they're in IANA.
And many other IEs are already present, for future ALTO extensions, if
required.
This would not only save one registry (ALTO Endpoint Property in
draft-ietf-alto-protocol-10), but offers a bigger advantage.
Let me explain.... When you will control your applications with ALTO, you
will anyway want to apply a flow measurement to monitor your changes, and to
serve as a feedback loop for more optimizations.
And the chances are high that you will using a NetFlow/IPFIX based
mechanism. Both NetFlow and IPFIX use the IPFIX I.E. IANA registry.
Therefore, it would make sense to have consistent data models between ALTO
and IPFIX, and avoid a data model proxy if we want to compare the data.
Proposal: reuse the ElementIDs found in the IPFIX I.E. IANA registry
somewhere in your protocol.
The suggested use case is in place of the Endpoint Property registry?
I'm referring to the examples in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11#section-7.5.3
So I guess it's
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11#section-10.3.
However,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11#section-10.3
doesn't contain the initial series of values.
Just to be sure I understand what would happen if we went that route,
what are the restrictions for adding new information elements?
Specifically, what kinds of elements are allowed or disallowed?
Things that have been informally discussed in the ALTO WG so far have
been things like load information and available network capacity. Do
those fit within the ipfix model?
The IANA considerations for new IPFIX IEs is in RFC5102,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5102#section-7.1.
It mentions: IANA through Expert Review [RFC2434
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434>]
The most up to date document regarding IE allocation is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-02.
I don't believe there are any limitations on for new IEs such as load
information and available network capacity.
Copying the IPFIX chairs and Brian Trammell.
Regards, Benoit.
Thanks,
Rich
Disclaimer: I have not read the protocol details
Regards, Benoit.
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
