I think the properties should be integrated into one ALTO service. But that
service needs to be a "Network Map" property service. That is, the unified
property resource should be bound to a specific network map, as opposed to
the current Endpoint Property Service, which is independent of the network
maps.
That new network map property service can associate properties with the
various entities related to a network map: endpoints, pids, ANEs, or
anything else that comes up in the future. Property names would be simple:
pid, bandwidth, asn, etc. For the entity names -- endpoints, pids, anes, etc
-- we could extend the set of address-type prefixes with "pid" and "ane".
So the request & response for a network map property service would look
something like this:
Request:
properties: pid asn bandwidth
entities: ipv4:1.2.3.4 pid:pid2 ane:link42
Response:
meta: vtag of network map
properties:
ipv4:1.2.3.4: {pid: pid23 asn: 64600}
pid:pid2: {asn: 64700}
ane:link42 {bandwidth: 20}
The IRD for that resource specifies the names of the properties it can
return, and the entity types for which it can return properties.
In addition to the post-mode filtered property map service, an ALTO could
provide full property map resources for sets of properties and entity types
selected by the server. E.g., one get-mode resource might return the asn
property for all pid entities, while another might return the bandwidth
property for all ane entities.
We could even define a full property map for endpoint properties. Granted,
it not practical to enumerate *all* endpoints. But for most ALTO servers, I
expect the endpoint->property map is very sparse. That is, the server only
defines properties for a small number of endpoints. In this case, the
endpoint-property full map would only return endpoints for which properties
are explicitly defined.
And if an ALTO server really does define properties for too many endpoints
to enumerate them all, the server simply does not provide a full-map
resource for endpoint properties.
Oh yes, the current endpoint property service would be flagged as a legacy,
and we would encourage servers to drop it and switch to network-map
properties.
What do folks think of this idea? I could present it in more detail in
Dallas if there is interest.
- Wendy Roome
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, February 25, 2015 at 16:24
To: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <[email protected]>
Cc: Wendy Roome <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO topology design: separation design
Q2: "* Like endpoints and PIDs, NEs can have properties. Eg, type,
bandwidth,
delay, etc."
What is the map (or maps) for such mapping of properties? We already have
endpoint properties. Ideally, this new mapping (and the additional PID
property mapping) should be designed to be consistent. All agree?
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
