Home Articles FAQs XREF Games Software Instant Books BBS About FOLDOC RFCs Feedback Sitemap

Request For Comments - RFC5693

You are here: irt.org | RFCs | RFC5693 [ previous next ]

Network Working Group                                         J. Seedorf
Request for Comments: 5693                                           NEC
Category: Informational                                        E. Burger
                                                            Neustar Inc.
                                                            October 2009

    Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement


   Distributed applications -- such as file sharing, real-time
   communication, and live and on-demand media streaming -- prevalent on
   the Internet use a significant amount of network resources.  Such
   applications often transfer large amounts of data through connections
   established between nodes distributed across the Internet with little
   knowledge of the underlying network topology.  Some applications are
   so designed that they choose a random subset of peers from a larger
   set with which to exchange data.  Absent any topology information
   guiding such choices, or acting on suboptimal or local information
   obtained from measurements and statistics, these applications often
   make less than desirable choices.

   This document discusses issues related to an information-sharing
   service that enables applications to perform better-than-random peer

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  State-of-the-Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  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.  Real-Time Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  Distributed Hash Tables  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Aspects of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Information Provided by an ALTO Service  . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  ALTO Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  ALTO Service Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.4.  User Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.5.  Topology Hiding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.6.  Coexistence with Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Overview

   Distributed applications, both peer-to-peer (P2P) and client/server
   used for file sharing, real-time communication, and live and on-
   demand media streaming, use a significant amount of network capacity
   and CPU cycles in the routers [WWW.wired.fuel].  In contrast to
   centralized applications, distributed 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 highly distributed 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 the available peers that provide such replicas randomly
   or based on information they deduce from partial observations that,
   in some situations, lead to suboptimal choices.  For example, one
   peer-selection algorithm is based only on the measurements during
   initial connection establishment between two peers.  Since actual
   data transmission does not begin, the algorithm measures only the

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   round-trip time and cannot reliably deduce actual throughput between
   the peers.  Thus, such a peer-selection algorithm that simply uses
   round-trip time may result in a suboptimal choice of peers.

   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 that 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

   Recent studies ([ACM.ispp2p], [WWW.p4p.overview], [ACM.ono]) show a
   possible solution to this problem.  Internet Service Providers
   (ISPs), network operators, or third parties can collect more reliable
   network information.  This information includes relevant information
   such as topology or link capacity.  Normally, such information
   changes on a much longer time scale than information used for
   congestion control on the transport layer.  Providing this
   information to P2P applications can enable them to apply better-than-
   random peer selection with respect to the underlying network
   topology.  As a result, it may be possible to increase application
   performance, reduce congestion, and decrease the overall amount of
   traffic across different networks.  Presumably, both applications and
   the network operator can benefit from such information.  Thus,
   network operators have an incentive to provide, either directly
   themselves or indirectly through a third party, such information;
   applications have an incentive to use such information.  This
   document discusses issues related to an information-sharing service
   that enables applications to perform better-than-random peer

   Section 2 provides definitions.  Section 3 introduces the problem.
   Section 4 describes some use cases where both P2P applications and
   network operators benefit from a solution to such a problem.
   Section 5 describes the main issues to consider when designing such a
   solution.  Note a companion document to this document, "Application-
   Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Requirements" [ALTO-REQS], goes
   into the details of these issues.

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

1.2.  State-of-the-Art

   The papers [ACM.ispp2p], [PATH-SEL], and [WWW.p4p.overview] present
   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 that a P2P application uses to find a
      reliable information source, and

   o  a protocol that 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 clear how such solutions will perform if deployed globally
   on the Internet.  However, wide adoption is unlikely without
   agreement on a common solution, based upon 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 improving 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 (i.e., a mixture between the P2P model and the
      client-server model).

   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.

   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) that applications can access.  In the ALTO context, a
      resource is often available in several equivalent replicas.  In
      addition, different peers share these resources, often

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   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 and established by a group of peers.

   Resource Directory:  An entity that is logically separate from the
      resource consumer and that assists the resource consumer to
      identify a set of resource providers.  Some P2P applications refer
      to the resource directory as a P2P tracker.

   ALTO Service:  Several resource providers may be able to provide the
      same resource.  The ALTO service gives guidance to a resource
      consumer and/or resource directory about which resource
      provider(s) to select in order to optimize the client's
      performance or quality of experience, while improving resource
      consumption in the underlying network infrastructure.

   ALTO Server:  A logical entity that provides interfaces to the
      queries to 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 and/or in the resource directory.

   ALTO Query:  A message sent from an ALTO client to an ALTO server; it
      requests guidance from the ALTO service.

   ALTO Response:  A message that contains guiding information from the
      ALTO service as a reply to an ALTO query.

   ALTO Transaction:  A transaction that consists of an ALTO query and
      the corresponding ALTO response.

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   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 (ISPs).  An ISP
      generally pays a transit provider for the delivery of traffic
      flowing between its network and remote networks to which the ISP
      does not have a direct connection.

   Application Protocol:  A protocol used by the application for
      establishing an overlay network between the peers and exchanging
      data on it, as well as for data exchange between peers and
      resource directories, if applicable.  These protocols play an
      important role in the overall ALTO architecture.  However,
      defining them is out of the scope of the ALTO WG.

   ALTO Client Protocol:  The protocol used for sending ALTO queries and
      ALTO replies between an ALTO client and ALTO server.

   Provisioning Protocol:  A protocol used for populating the ALTO
      server with information.

                                          +-----+   | Peers
          +-----+       +------+    +=====|     |-*-+
          |     |.......|      |====+     +-*-*-+ *
          +-----+       +------+    |       * *****
        Source of        ALTO       |       *
        Information      Server     |     +-*---+
                                    +=====|     | Resource Directory
                                          +-----+ (Tracker, proxy)
        === ALTO client 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 the ALTO client protocol: peers or
   resource directories can use such a protocol as ALTO clients to query
   an ALTO server.  The mapping of topological information onto an ALTO

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   service as well as the application protocol interaction between peers
   and resource directories are out of scope for the ALTO client

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 (or
   optimal queues in routers) for packets traveling between specific
   source and destination addresses.  Solutions are 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.

   However, distributed applications in general and, in particular,
   bandwidth-greedy P2P applications that are used, for example, for
   file sharing, cannot directly use the aforementioned techniques.  By
   cooperating with external services that are aware of the network
   topology, applications could greatly improve the traffic they
   generate.  In fact, when a P2P application needs to establish a
   connection, the logical target is not a stable host, but rather a
   resource (e.g., a file or a media relay) that can be available in
   multiple instances on different peers.  Selection of a good host from
   an overlay topological proximity has a large impact on the overall
   traffic generated.

      Note that while traffic considerations are important, several
      other factors also play a role on the performance experienced by
      users of distributed applications.  These include the need to
      avoid overloading individual nodes, fetching rare pieces of a file
      before those pieces are available at a multiplicity of nodes, and
      so on.  However, better information about topological conditions
      does improve the overall selection algorithm on an important

   Better-than-random peer selection is helpful in the initial phase of
   the process.  Consider a P2P protocol in which 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.

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   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
   with which they establish connections.

4.  Use Cases

4.1.  File sharing

   File-sharing applications allow users to search for content shared by
   other users and to download respective resources from other users.
   For instance, search results can 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, improvement 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.  Today, selection of the proper mirror/cache for a
   given user is based on inaccurate geolocation data, on proprietary
   network-location systems, or is often delegated to the user herself.
   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 a
   peer to find effective communicating peers that exchange the media

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

4.4.  Real-Time 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.  Unfortunately, however, 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
   relays are distributed over the Internet with public addresses.  An
   ALTO solution needs to help peers find the best relays.

4.5.  Distributed Hash Tables

   Distributed hash tables (DHTs) are a class of overlay algorithms used
   to implement lookup functionalities in popular P2P systems, without
   using centralized elements.  In such systems, a peer maintains the
   addresses of a set of other peers participating in the same DHT in a
   routing table, sorted according to specific criteria.  An ALTO
   solution can provide valuable information for DHT algorithms.

5.  Aspects of the Problem

   This section introduces some aspects of the problem that some people
   may not be aware of when they first start studying the problem space.

5.1.  Information Provided by an ALTO Service

   The goal of an ALTO service is to provide applications with
   information they can use to perform better-than-random peer
   selection.  In principle, there are many types of information that
   can help applications in peer selection.  However, not all of the
   information to be conveyed is amenable to an ALTO-like service.  More
   specifically, information that can change very rapidly, such as
   transport-layer congestion, is out of scope for an ALTO service.
   Such information is better suited to be transferred through an in-
   band technique at the transport layer instead of an ALTO-like, out-
   of-band technique at the application layer.  An ALTO solution for
   congestion will either have outdated information or must be contacted
   too frequently by applications.  And finally, information such as
   end-to-end delay and available bandwidth can be more accurately
   measured by applications, themselves.

   The kind of information that is meaningful to convey to applications
   via an out-of-band ALTO service is any information that applications
   cannot easily obtain themselves and that changes on a much longer
   time scale than the instantaneous information used for congestion
   control on the transport layer.  Examples for such information are
   operator's policies, geographical location or network proximity

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   (e.g., the topological distance between two peers), the transmission
   costs associated with sending/receiving a certain amount of data to/
   from a peer, or the remaining amount of traffic allowed by a peer's
   operator (e.g., in case of quotas or limited flat-rate pricing

5.2.  ALTO Service Providers

   At least three different kinds of entities can provide ALTO services:

   1.  Network operators.  Network operators usually have full knowledge
       of the network they administer and are aware of their network
       topology and policies.

   2.  Third parties.  Third parties are entities separate from network
       operators but that may either have collected network information
       or have arrangements with network operators to learn the 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.

   3.  User communities.  User communities run distributed algorithms,
       for example, for estimating the topology of the Internet.

5.3.  ALTO Service Implementation

   It is important for the reader to understand there are significant
   user communities that expect an ALTO server to be a centralized
   service.  Likewise, there are other user communities that expect the
   ALTO service be a distributed service, possibly even based on or
   integrating with a P2P service.

   As a result, one can reasonably expect there to be some sort of
   service-discovery mechanism to go along with the ALTO protocol

5.4.  User Privacy

   On the one hand, there are data elements an ALTO client could provide
   in its query to an ALTO server that 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.  On the other hand,

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   applications might consider such information private.  In addition,
   some applications may not know a priori what kind of request they
   will be making.

5.5.  Topology Hiding

   Operators, with their intimate knowledge of their network topology,
   can play an important role in addressing the ALTO problem.  However,
   operators often consider revealing details of such network
   information to be confidential.

5.6.  Coexistence with Caching

   Caching is an approach to improving traffic generated by
   applications, and it requires large amounts of data transfers.  In
   some cases, such techniques have proven to be extremely effective in
   both enhancing user experience and saving network resources.

   A cache, either explicitly or transparently, replaces the content
   source.  Thus, a cache must, in principle, use and support the same
   protocol as the querying peer.  That is, if a cache stores web
   content, it must present an HTTP interface to the web client.  Any
   cache solution for a given protocol needs to present that same
   protocol to the client.  Said differently, each caching solution for
   a different protocol needs to implement that specific protocol.  For
   this reason, one can only reasonably expect caching solutions for the
   most popular protocols, such as HTTP and BitTorrent.

   It is extremely important to realize that caching and ALTO are
   entirely orthogonal.  ALTO, especially if it is aware of caches, can
   in fact direct clients to nearby caches where the user could get a
   much better quality of experience.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document is neither a requirements document nor a protocol
   specification.  However, we believe it is important for the reader to
   understand areas of security and privacy that will be important for
   the design and implementation of an ALTO solution.  Moreover, issues
   such as digital rights management are out of scope for ALTO, as they
   are not technically enforceable at this level.

   Some environments and use cases of ALTO may require client or server
   authentication before providing sensitive information.  In order to
   support those environments interoperably, the ALTO requirements
   document [ALTO-REQS] outlines minimum-to-implement authentication and
   other security requirements.

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   Applications can decide to rely on information provided by an ALTO
   server to enhance the peer-selection process.  In principle, this
   enables the ALTO service that provides such information to influence
   the behavior of the application, basically letting a third-party --
   the ALTO service provider -- take an important role in a distributed
   system it was not previously involved in.

   For example, in the case of an ALTO server deployed and run by an
   ISP, the P2P community might consider such a server hostile because
   the operator could:

   o  use ALTO to prevent content distribution and enforce copyrights;

   o  redirect applications to corrupted mediators providing malicious

   o  track connections to perform content inspection or logging;

   o  apply policies based on criteria other than network efficiency.
      For example, the service provider may suggest routes suboptimal
      from the user's perspective in order to avoid peering points
      regulated by inconvenient economic agreements.

   It is important to note there is no protocol mechanism to require
   ALTO for P2P applications.  If, for some reason, ALTO fails to
   improve the performance of P2P applications, ALTO will not gain
   popularity and the P2P community will not use it.

   At the time of this writing, the privacy issues described in
   Section 5.4 are relevant for an ALTO solution.  Users may be
   reluctant to disclose sensitive information to an ALTO server.
   Operators, on the other hand, may not wish to disclose information
   that would expose details of their interior topology.  When exploring
   the solution space in detail, one needs to consider these issues so
   that an ALTO protocol does not presume mandatory information
   disclosure, by either clients or servers.

7.  Contributors

   This document was initially edited by Enrico Marocco and Vijay
   Gurbani.  In the role of Working Group chairs, they have continued to
   provide significant edits and inputs to the current authors.

8.  Acknowledgments

   Vinay Aggarwal and the P4P working group conducted the research work
   done outside the IETF.  Emil Ivov, Rohan Mahy, Anthony Bryan,
   Stanislav Shalunov, Laird Popkin, Stefano Previdi, Reinaldo Penno,

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   Dimitri Papadimitriou, Sebastian Kiesel, Greg DePriest, and many
   others provided insightful discussions, specific comments, and much
   needed corrections.

   Jan Seedorf and Sebastian Kiesel are partially supported by the NAPA-
   WINE project (Network-Aware P2P-TV Application over Wise Networks,
   http://www.napa-wine.org), a research project supported by the
   European Commission under its 7th Framework Program (contract no.
   214412).  The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the
   authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
   official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of
   the NAPA-WINE project or the European Commission.

   Thanks in particular to Richard Yang for several reviews.

9.  Informative References

              Akella, A., Seshan, S., and A. Shaikh, "An Empirical
              Evaluation of WideArea Internet Bottlenecks",
              Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, October 2003.

              Karagiannis, T., Rodriguez, P., and K. Papagiannaki,
              "Should ISPs fear Peer-Assisted Content Distribution?",
              ACM USENIX IMC, Berkeley 2005.

              Aggarwal, V., Feldmann, A., and C. Scheideler, "Can ISPs
              and P2P systems co-operate for improved performance?",
              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.

              Kiesel, S., Popkin, L., Previdi, S., Woundy, R., and Y.
              Yang, "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
              Requirements", Work in Progress, April 2009.

              Saucez, D. and B. Donnet, "The case for an informed path
              selection service", Work in Progress, February 2008.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5693                 ALTO Problem Statement             October 2009

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.

              Xie, H., Krishnamurthy, A., Silberschatz, A., and R. Yang,
              "P4P: Explicit Communications for Cooperative Control
              Between P2P and Network Providers",

              Glasner, J., "P2P Fuels Global Bandwidth Binge",
              April 2005, <http://www.wired.com>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jan Seedorf
   NEC Laboratories Europe, NEC Europe Ltd.
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  69115

   Phone: +49 (0) 6221 4342 221
   EMail: jan.seedorf@nw.neclab.eu
   URI:   http://www.nw.neclab.eu

   Eric W. Burger
   Neustar Inc.
   46000 Center Oak Plaza
   Sterling, VA  20166-6579

   Fax:   +1 530 267 7447
   EMail: eburger@standardstrack.com
   URI:   http://www.standardstrack.com

Seedorf & Burger             Informational                     [Page 14]

©2018 Martin Webb