Hi, Michael:
Thanks for re-work and updating to monitoring section.
I have a few comments to section 3.4 you updated.
1. The monitoring infrastructure can be third party,Or can be integrated into
ALTO server? If it is the third party based, I think the trust relationship
between monitoring system and alto server needs to be established, otherwise,
security concern may be raised.
2. Section 4.3 says:
"
An NSP offering ALTO could consider the impact on (or integration with) traffic
engineering and the deployment of a monitoring service to observe the
effects of ALTO operations.
"
Traffic engineering is related to monitoring ALTO performance? I think you may
gather traffic engineering information from routing protocol, these traffic
engineering information can be used to reflect network performance and provide
fine granularity of cost map or network map? However it has nothing to do with
performance of ALTO?
Performance of ALTO is more about how many request or response can be handled,
3. Section 3.4.2 says:
"
Total amount and distribution of traffic: ALTO enables ISPs to
influence and localize traffic of applications that use the ALTO
service. An ISP may therefore be interested in analyzing the
impact on the traffic, i.e., whether network traffic patterns are
shifted. For instance, if ALTO shall be used to reduce the inter-
domain P2P traffic, it makes sense to evaluate the total amount of
inter-domain traffic of an ISP.
"
How traffic distribution is related to ALTO performance monitoring, I can not
understand this.
4. Section 3.4.2 says:
"
Application performance: The objective of ALTO is improve
application performance. ALTO can be used by very different types
applications, with different communication characteristics and
requirements. For instance, if ALTO guidance achieves traffic
localization, one would expect that applications achieve a higher
throughput and/or smaller delays to retrieve data. Application-
specific performance characteristics (e.g., video or audio
quality) can be useful as well. In addition, selected statistics
from the TCP/IP stack in hosts can be useful, e.g., the number of
retransmitted TCP segments.
"
It is not clear to me whether you measure traffic performance or ALTO
performance?
I think application performance you described here has nothing to do with ALTO
performance.
Only ALTO system performance is related to ALTO performance. I feel you mix
traffic performance
With ALTO performance. What am I missing?
Regards!
-Qin
From: Scharf, Michael (Michael) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 1:40 AM
To: Qin Wu
Cc: IETF ALTO
Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08#appendix-A
Hi Qin Wu,
The new version of the draft includes an entirely re-written section replacing
the former appendix A:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-deployments-09#section-3.4
Please let me know if this does not address your concerns or if you have
suggestions for improvements.
Thanks
Michael
From: alto [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael (Michael)
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:43 AM
To: Qin Wu; IETF ALTO
Subject: Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08#appendix-A
Hi Qin Wu,
Thanks for your feedback. You raise similar issues like a performance
directorate review of the same part of the document (cf.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/current/msg00610.html).
Addressing this review is still TBD. Version -08 of the draft contains numerous
other edits, and since I focused on those other parts of the document, I just
moved this problematic section into appendix A. My thinking (see also the
slides at the last meeting) is that the current text in appendix A will have to
be almost completely removed.
I plan to publish -09 before the next meeting, and addressing the performance
directorate review is a high-priority item. If you have suggestions for
specific text to be contributed to -09, please let me know.
Thanks
Michael
From: alto [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:06 AM
To: IETF ALTO
Subject: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08#appendix-A
Hi,
I have reviewed appendix A of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-08.
It appear to me this appendix A is outdated and need to be update or separated
as another draft.
A few comments below:
1. Appendix A paragraph 1 said:
"
In addition to providing configuration, an ISP providing ALTO may
want to deploy a monitoring infrastructure to assess the benefits of
ALTO and adjust its ALTO configuration according to the results of
the monitoring.
"
It looks something is disconnected when we say "in addition to providing
configuration", where
Configuration providing is discussed in this draft?
Also I think monitoring infrastructure is not limited to assess the benefits of
ALTO, I think the more important
thing is performance metrics can be injected into ALTO server to provide fine
granularity of cost map and network map,
alto server can leverage these information to decide which is the best endpoint
to connect.
2. Appendix ,paragraph 3 said:
"
[Editor's note: Is there a relationship to the IPPM working group at
the IETF?]
"
Sure, for most QoS metrics like loss, delay, delay variation, etc.,
standard IPPM definitions exist. In case such metrics are reported,
the IPPM standard definition should be used.
3. Appendix A.1
Monitoring Metrics is not limited to the list given in the Appendix A.1,
Also it doesn't make sense to enumerate all the performance metrics.
4. Appendix A.2
If you support routing protocol, you can gather peformance metrics from routing
protocol,
In this case, you don't need to deploy any data source to collect data.
On the other hand, there are many ways in which the performance of an data folw
can be
monitored. These include generic MIBs, NetFlow, IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX),syslog, and so on.
Regards!
-Qin
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
