Network Working Group J. Seedorf
Internet-Draft NEC
Intended status: Informational E. Burger
Expires: August 9, 2009 This Space for Sale
February 5, 2009
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement
draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement-04
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Abstract
Peer-to-peer applications, such as file sharing, real-time
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
communication, and live media streaming, use a significant amount of
Internet resources. Such applications often transfer large amounts
of data in direct peer-to-peer connections. However, they usually
have little knowledge of the underlying network topology. As a
result, they may choose their peers based on measurements and
statistics that, in many situations, may lead to suboptimal choices.
This document describes problems related to optimizing traffic
generated by peer-to-peer applications and associated issues such
optimizations raise in the use of network-layer information.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Research or Engineering? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. File sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Cache/Mirror Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Live Media Streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Realtime Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Distributed Hash Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. The Problem in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. ALTO Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Discovery of ALTO servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. User Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Topology Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Coexistence with Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
1. Introduction
Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, such as file sharing, real-time
communication, and live media streaming, use a significant amount of
Internet resources [WWW.cachelogic.picture] [WWW.wired.fuel].
Different from the client/server architecture, P2P applications
access resources such as files or media relays distributed across the
Internet and exchange large amounts of data in connections that they
establish directly with nodes sharing such resources.
One advantage of P2P systems results from the fact that the resources
such systems offer are often available through multiple replicas.
However, applications generally do not have reliable information of
the underlying network and thus have to select among available
instances based on information they deduce from empirical
measurements that, in some situations, lead to suboptimal choices.
For example, one popular metric is an estimation of round-trip time.
This choice occurs before actual data transmission begins and thus
before the peer can deduce actual throughput. Even with actual
round-trip time, there may be bottlenecks or intermittent links that
the round-trip time does not capture. Bottlenecks, limited
throughput, and intermittent links often has much more influence on
the peer's perceived quality of service and network utilization than
round-trip time. Therefore, a peer selection algorithm that simply
uses round-trip time often results in a sub-optimal choice of peer.
Many of today's P2P systems use an overlay network consisting of
direct peer connections. Such connections often do not account for
the underlying network topology. In addition to having suboptimal
performance, such networks can lead to congestion and cause serious
inefficiencies. As shown in [ACM.fear], traffic generated by popular
P2P applications often cross network boundaries multiple times,
overloading links which are frequently subject to congestion
[ACM.bottleneck]. Moreover, such transits, besides resulting in a
poor experience for the user, can be quite costly to the network
operator.
Recent studies [ACM.ispp2p] [WWW.p4p.overview] [ACM.ono] show a
possible solution to this problem. Internet Service Providers (ISP),
network operators or third parties can collect reliable network
information. This information includes relevant information such as
topology or instantaneous bandwidth available. By providing this
information to P2P applications, it would be possible to greatly
increase application performance, reduce congestion and optimize the
overall traffic across different networks. This document gives the
problem statement of optimizing traffic generated by P2P applications
using information provided by a separate party.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
Section 3 introduces the problem. Section 4 describes some use cases
where both P2P applications and network operators would benefit from
a solution to such a problem. Section 5 describes the main issues to
consider when designing such a solution.
1.1. Research or Engineering?
The papers [I-D.bonaventure-informed-path-selection] and [ACM.ispp2p]
[WWW.p4p.overview] are examples of contemporary solution proposals
that address the problem described in this document. Moreover, these
proposals have encouraging simulation and field test results. These
and similar, independent, solutions all consist of two essential
parts:
o a discovery mechanism which a P2P application uses to find a
reliable information source;
o a protocol P2P applications use to query such sources in order to
retrieve the information needed to perform better-than-random
selection of the endpoints providing a desired resource.
It is not easy to foresee how such solutions would perform in the
Internet, but a more accurate evaluation would require representative
data collected from real systems by a critical mass of users.
However, wide adoption will probably never happen without an
agreement on a common solution based on an open standard.
2. Definitions
The following terms have special meaning in the definition of the
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) problem.
Application: A distributed communication system (e.g., file sharing)
that uses the ALTO service to improve its performance (or quality
of experience) while optimizing resource consumption in the
underlying network infrastructure. Applications may use the P2P
model to organize themselves, use the client-server model, or use
a hybrid of both.
Peer: A specific participant in an application. Colloquially, a
peer refers to a participant in a P2P network or system, and this
definition does not violate that assumption. If the basis of the
application is the client-server or hybrid model, then the usage
of the terms "client" and "server" disambiguates the peer's role.
P2P: Peer-to-Peer.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
Resource: Content, such as a file or a chunk of a file or a server
process, for example to relay a media stream or perform a
computation, which applications can access. In the ALTO context,
a resource is often available in several equivalent replicas. In
addition, different peers share these resources, often
simultaneously.
Resource Identifier: An application layer identifier used to
identify a resource, no matter how many replicas exist.
Resource Provider: For P2P applications, a resource provider is a
specific peer that provides some resources. For client-server or
hybrid applications, a provider is a server that hosts a resource.
Resource Consumer: For P2P applications, a resource consumer is a
specific peer that needs to access resources. For client-server
or hybrid applications, a consumer is a client that needs to
access resources.
Transport Address: All address information that a resource consumer
needs to access the desired resource at a specific resource
provider. This information usually consists of the resource
provider's IP address and possibly other information, such as a
transport protocol identifier or port numbers.
Overlay Network: A virtual network consisting of direct connections
on top of another network, established by a group of peers.
Resource Directory: An entity that is logically separate from the
resource consumer that assists a resource consumer to identify a
set of resource providers. Some P2P applications refer to the
resource directory as a P2P tracker.
INTERNAL EDITOR'S NOTE: I changed "An entity which is separate"
to "An entity which is *logically* separate." Doing this means
all applications do this, even if hard coded or calculated in
the resource consumer.
Host Location Attribute: Information about the location of a host in
the network topology. The ALTO service gives recommendations
based on this information. A host location attribute may consist
of, for example, an IP address, an address prefix or address range
that contains the host, an autonomous system (AS) number, or any
other localization attribute. These different options may provide
different levels of detail. Depending on the system architecture,
this may have implications on the quality of the recommendations
ALTO is able to provide, on whether recommendations can be
aggregated, and on how much privacy-sensitive information about
users might be disclosed to additional parties.
ALTO Service: Several resource providers may be able to provide the
same resource. The ALTO service gives guidance to a resource
consumer or resource directory about which resource provider(s) to
select, in order to optimize the client's performance or quality
of experience while optimizing resource consumption in the
underlying network infrastructure.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
ALTO Server: A logical entity that provides interfaces to query the
ALTO service.
ALTO Client: The logical entity that sends ALTO queries. Depending
on the architecture of the application one may embed it in the
resource consumer or in the resource directory.
ALTO Query: A message sent from an ALTO client to an ALTO server,
which requests guidance from the ALTO Service.
ALTO Response: A message sent from an ALTO server to an ALTO client,
which contains guiding information from the ALTO service.
ALTO Transaction: An ALTO transaction consists of an ALTO query and
the corresponding ALTO response.
Local Traffic: Traffic that stays within the network infrastructure
of one Internet Service Provider (ISP). This type of traffic
usually results in the least cost for the ISP.
Peering Traffic: Internet traffic exchanged by two Internet Service
Providers whose networks connect directly. Apart from
infrastructure and operational costs, peering traffic is often
free to the ISPs, within the contract of a peering agreement.
Transit Traffic: Internet traffic exchanged on the basis of economic
agreements amongst Internet Service Providers (ISP). An ISP
generally pays a transit provider for the delivery of traffic
flowing between its network and remote networks that the ISP does
not have a direct connection.
+------+
+-----+ | Peers
+-----+ +------+ +=====| |--+
| |.......| |====+ +--*--+
+-----+ +------+ | *
Source of ALTO | *
topological service | +--*--+
information +=====| | Super-peer
+-----+ (Tracker, proxy)
Legend:
=== ALTO protocol
*** Application protocol (out of scope)
... Provisioning or initialization (out of scope)
Figure 1 - Overview of protocol interaction between ALTO elements
Figure 1 shows the scope of an ALTO protocol: Peers or super-peers
can use such a protocol to query an ALTO-service. The mapping of
topological information onto an ALTO service and the P2P-protocol
interaction between peers and super-peers is out of scope of an ALTO
query protocol.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
3. The Problem
Network engineers have been facing the problem of traffic
optimization for a long time and have designed mechanisms like MPLS
[RFC3031] and DiffServ [RFC3260] to deal with it. The problem these
protocols address consists in finding (or setting) optimal routes for
packets traveling between specific source and destination addresses
and based on requirements such as low latency, high reliability, and
priority. Such solutions are usually implemented at the link and
network layers, and tend to be almost transparent. At best,
applications can only "mark" the traffic they generate with the
corresponding properties.
However, P2P applications that are today posing serious challenges to
Internet infrastructures do not benefit much from the above route-
based techniques. Cooperating with external services aware of the
network topology could greatly optimize the traffic the P2P
application generates. In fact, when a P2P application needs to
establish a connection, the logical target is not a host, but rather
a resource (e.g., a file or a media relay) that is often available in
multiple instances on different peers. Selection of the closest one
-- or, in general, the best from an overlay topological proximity --
has much more impact on the overall traffic than the route followed
by its packets to reach the endpoint.
Optimization of peer selection is particularly important in the
initial phase of the process. Consider a P2P protocol such as
BitTorrent, where a querying peer receives a list of candidate
destinations where a resource resides. From this list, the peer will
derive a smaller set of candidates to connect to and exchange
information with. In another example, a streaming video client may
be provided with a list of destinations from which it can stream
content. In both cases, the use of topology information in an early
stage will allow applications to improve their performance and will
help ISPs make a better use of their network resources. In
particular, an economic goal for ISPs is to reduce the transit
traffic on interdomain links.
Addressing the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) problem
means, on the one hand, deploying an ALTO service to provide
applications with information regarding the underlying network and,
on the other hand, enhancing applications in order to use such
information to perform better-than-random selection of the endpoints
they establish connections with.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
4. Use Cases
4.1. File sharing
File sharing applications allow users to search for content shared by
other users and download it. Typically, search results consist of
many instances of the same file (or chunk of a file) available from
multiple sources. The goal of an ALTO solution is to help peers find
the best ones according to the underlying networks.
On the application side, integration of ALTO functionalities may
happen at different levels. For example, in the completely
decentralized Gnutella network, selection of the best sources is
totally up to the user. In systems like BitTorrent and eDonkey,
central elements such as trackers or servers act as mediators.
Therefore, in the former case, optimization would require
modification in the applications, while in the latter it could just
be implemented in some central elements.
4.2. Cache/Mirror Selection
Providers of popular content like media and software repositories
usually resort to geographically distributed caches and mirrors for
load balancing. Selection of the proper mirror/cache for a given
user is today based on inaccurate geolocation data, on proprietary
network location systems or often delegated to the user himself. An
ALTO solution could be easily adopted to ease such a selection in an
automated way.
4.3. Live Media Streaming
P2P applications for live streaming allow users to receive multimedia
content produced by one source and targeted to multiple destinations,
in a real-time or near-real-time way. This is particularly important
for users or networks that do not support multicast. Peers often
participate in the distribution of the content, acting as both
receivers and senders. The goal of an ALTO solution is to help peers
to find the best sources and the best destinations for media flows
they receive and relay.
4.4. Realtime Communications
P2P real-time communications allow users to establish direct media
flows for real-time audio, video, and real-time text calls or to have
text chats. In the basic case, media flows directly between the two
endpoints. However, unfortunately a significant portion of users
have limited access to the Internet due to NATs, firewalls or
proxies. Thus, other elements need to relay the media. Such media
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
relays are distributed over the Internet with a public addresses. An
ALTO solution needs to help peers to find the best relays.
4.5. Distributed Hash Tables
Distributed hash tables (DHT) are a class of overlay algorithms used
to implement lookup functionalities in popular P2P systems, without
using centralized elements. In such systems, peers maintain
addresses of other peers participating in the same DHT in a routing
table, sorted according to specific criteria. An ALTO solution will
provide valuable information for DHT algorithms.
5. The Problem in Detail
This section introduces some aspects to keep in consideration when
designing an ALTO service to provide applications with information
they can use to perform better-than-random peer selection.
5.1. ALTO Service Providers
At least three different kinds of entities can provide ALTO services:
1. Network operators: usually have full knowledge of the network
they administer and are aware of the topology and policies that
transit and peering traffic are subject to;
2. Third parties: are entities different from the network operators,
but which may have collected network information. Examples of
such entities are content delivery networks like Akamai, which
control wide and highly distributed infrastructures, or companies
providing an ALTO service on behalf of ISPs (and thus acquire the
information from the ISPs themselves);
3. User communities: run distributed algorithms, for example for
estimating the topology of the Internet.
5.2. Discovery of ALTO servers
As a direct consequence of the totally decentralized architecture of
the Internet, it seems almost impossible to centralize all
information P2P applications may need to optimize traffic they
generate. Therefore, any solution for the ALTO problem will need to
specify a mechanism for applications to find a proper ALTO server to
query.
It is important to note that, depending on the implementation of the
ALTO service, an ALTO server could be a centralized entity, for
example deployed by the network operator, as well as a ephemeral node
participating in a distributed algorithm.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
5.3. User Privacy
Information provided by the ALTO client querying the ALTO server
could help increase the level of accuracy in the replies. For
example, if the querying client indicates what kind of application it
is using (e.g. real-time communications or bulk data transfer), the
server will be able to indicate priorities in its replies
accommodating the requirements of the traffic the application will
generate. However, it is important that for using an ALTO service
the application does not have to disclose information it may consider
sensitive.
5.4. Topology Hiding
Operators can play an important role in addressing the ALTO problem,
but they generally consider network information they own to be
confidential. Therefore, in order to succeed and achieve wide
adoption, any solution should provide a method to help P2P
applications in peer selection without explicitly disclosing topology
of the underlying network.
5.5. Coexistence with Caching
Caching is a common approach to optimizing traffic generated by
applications that require large data transfers. In some cases, such
techniques have proven to be extremely effective in both enhancing
user experience and saving network resources. However, they have two
main limits in respect to the solutions based on the provision of
topology information:
1. Application specificity: since a cache is meant to replace the
source of the content being accessed -- either explicitly or
transparently -- it must be able to speak the same protocol with
the querying peer. For this reason, caching solutions can be
reasonably adopted only for the most popular applications, such
as HTTP and BitTorrent.
2. Content awareness: since caches need to store the content being
delivered, they are subject to legal issues whenever the user
does not have the right to access or distribute such content.
This limitation makes caching approaches that do not (or cannot)
support digital rights management unusable for distributing
copyrighted material. Since, it is very difficult for an
abstract file sharing proxy to know all of the legal parameters
around distributing content, this makes caching unusable for many
file-sharing systems. Since this is a legal and not technical
issue, the solution would be at the legal, not network, layer.
In general, solutions based on provision of topology information need
not interfere with caching. In fact, if the ALTO service used by
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
applications is aware of the presence of caches, the service can
indicate this in its response, marking them with higher priorities to
achieve greater optimization.
6. Security Considerations
The approach proposed in this document asks P2P applications to
delegate a portion of their routing capability to third parties.
This gives the third party a significant role in P2P systems.
In the case where the network operator deploys an ALTO solution, it
is conceivable that the P2P community would consider it hostile
because the operator could, for example:
o redirect applications to corrupted mediators providing malicious
content;
o track connections to perform content inspection or logging; and
o apply policies based on criteria other than network efficiency.
For example, the service provider may suggest routes sub-optimal
from the user's perspective to avoid peering points regulated by
inconvenient economic agreements.
It is important to note that ALTO is completely optional for P2P
applications and its purpose is to help improve performance of such
applications. If, for some reason, it fails to achieve this purpose,
it would simply fail to gain popularity and the P2P community would
not use it.
Even in cases where the ALTO service provider maliciously alters
results returned by queries after ALTO has gained popularity (i.e.,
the service provider plays well for a while to become popular and
then starts misbehaving), it would be easy for P2P application
maintainers and users to revert to solutions that are not using it.
7. IANA Considerations
None.
8. Acknowledgments
The basis of this document is draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement,
written by Enrico Marocco and Vijay Gurbani. The authors of this
draft continued editing the previous version in agreement with the
original authors.
Vinay Aggarwal and the P4P working group conducted the research work
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
done outside the IETF. Emil Ivov, Rohan Mahy, Anthony Bryan,
Stanislav Shalunov, Laird Popkin, Stefano Previdi, Reinaldo Penno,
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Sebastian Kiesel, and many others provided
insightful discussions, specific comments and much needed
corrections.
Thanks in particular to Richard Yang for several reviews.
9. Informative References
[ACM.bottleneck]
Akella, A., Seshan, S., and A. Shaikh, "An Empirical
Evaluation of WideArea Internet Bottlenecks", Proceedings
of ACM SIGCOMM, October 2003.
[ACM.fear]
Karagiannis, T., Rodriguez, P., and K. Papagiannaki,
"Should ISPs fear Peer-Assisted Content Distribution?",
In ACM USENIX IMC, Berkeley 2005.
[ACM.ispp2p]
Aggarwal, V., Feldmann, A., and C. Scheideler, "Can ISPs
and P2P systems co-operate for improved performance?", In
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review
(CCR), 37:3, pp. 29-40.
[ACM.ono] Choffnes, D. and F. Bustamante, "Taming the Torrent: A
practical approach to reducing cross-ISP traffic in P2P
systems", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, August 2008.
[I-D.bonaventure-informed-path-selection]
Saucez, D. and B. Donnet, "The case for an informed path
selection service",
draft-bonaventure-informed-path-selection-00 (work in
progress), February 2008.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.
[SIGCOMM.resprox]
Gummadi, K., Gummadi, R., Ratnasamy, S., Gribble, S.,
Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "The impact of DHT routing
geometry on resilience and proximity", Proceedings of ACM
SIGCOMM, August 2003.
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ALTO Problem Statement February 2009
[WWW.cachelogic.picture]
Parker, A., "The true picture of peer-to-peer
filesharing", <http://www.cachelogic.com>.
[WWW.p4p.overview]
Xie, H., Krishnamurthy, A., Silberschatz, A., and R. Yang,
"P4P: Explicit Communications for Cooperative Control
Between P2P and Network Providers",
<http://www.dcia.info/documents/P4P_Overview.pdf>.
[WWW.wired.fuel]
Glasner, J., "P2P fuels global bandwidth binge",
<http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/04/67202>.
Authors' Addresses
Jan Seedorf
NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 221
Email: jan.seedorf@nw.neclab.eu
URI: http://www.nw.neclab.eu
Eric W. Burger
This Space for Sale
New Hampshire
USA
Phone:
Fax: +1 530 267 7447
Email: eburger@standardstrack.com
URI: http://www.standardstrack.com
Seedorf & Burger Expires August 9, 2009 [Page 13]