--- 1/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06.txt 2017-02-01 15:13:11.530234557 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-07.txt 2017-02-01 15:13:11.590235978 -0800 @@ -1,56 +1,56 @@ MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore Internet Draft Robert Sayko Intended status: BCP AT&T -Expires: May 15, 2017 Greg Shepherd +Expires: August 1, 2017 Greg Shepherd Toerless Eckert Cisco Ram Krishnan Brocade - November 15, 2016 + February 1, 2017 Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points - draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06.txt + draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-07.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 15, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2017. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2017 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 Simplified BSD License. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format @@ -79,73 +79,74 @@ Enabled.......................................................10 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2..........................................................12 4. Supporting Functionality......................................14 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................16 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....17 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................17 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines - ..............................................................19 + ..............................................................20 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................20 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines.................21 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................22 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22 -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...25 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics...............................25 6. Security Considerations.......................................26 7. IANA Considerations...........................................27 8. Conclusions...................................................27 9. References....................................................27 9.1. Normative References.....................................27 9.2. Informative References...................................28 10. Acknowledgments..............................................29 1. Introduction - Several types of applications (e.g., live video streaming, software - downloads) are well suited for delivery via multicast means. The use - of multicast for delivering such applications offers significant - savings for utilization of resources in any given administrative - domain. End user demand for such applications is growing. Often, - this requires transporting such applications across administrative - domains via inter-domain peering points. + Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live + video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery + via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such + content/data offers significant savings for utilization of resources + in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such + content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the + content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering + points. The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold: o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for - setting up multicast-based delivery of applications across inter- - domain peering points via a set of use cases. + setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data + across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases. o Catalog all required information exchange between the administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery. This enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support inter-domain peering with multicast. The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows: o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point" refers to an interface between two networks/administrative domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering point. o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2. o It is understood that several protocols are available for this purpose including PIM-SM [RFC4609], Protocol Independent Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810]. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to the source without the need of invoking an intermediate Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in [RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter- @@ -177,74 +178,67 @@ between many operators, is not in scope for this document. This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement is beyond the scope of this document. 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a peering point. o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by one of two possible tunnel types: o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450]. - o The application stream originates at a source in Domain 1. The - source IP address is known. - o An End User associated with Domain 2 requests the application. - It is assumed that the application is suitable for delivery via - multicast means (e.g., live steaming of major events, software - downloads to large numbers of end user devices, etc.) - o The request is communicated to the application source which - provides the relevant multicast delivery information to the EU - device. This information is in the form of appropriate - metadata. At a minimum, this metadata includes the {Source, - Group} or (S,G) information relevant to the multicast stream. - It may also contain additional information that the application - client can use to locate the source and join the stream. The - delivery method by which the source transmits this information - is determined via arrangements between the source and the two - Administrative Domains. The description of the delivery method - and the format of the metadata is out of scope for this - document. - o The application client in the EU device then joins the - multicast stream distributed by the application source in - domain 1 utilizing the (S,G) information provided in the - manifest file. + o A service provider controls one or more application sources in + AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more + (S,G)s. It is assumed that the service being provided is + suitable for delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming + of popular events, software downloads to many devices, etc.), + and that the packet streams will be part of a suitable + multicast transport protocol. + o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which + runs an application client compatible with the service + provider's application source. + o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to + receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU. + The mechanisms by which the application client learns the + appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the + application, and are out of scope for this document. Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 1 network operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network operated by a single customer. The peering point architecture and requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the Enterprise case. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise network possibility will be described in this section. A comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be exchanged between the two domains to support various functions enabling the application transport is provided in section 4. +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast The transport of applications using multicast requires that the inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process. - There are five possible Use Cases for consideration. + There are five Use Cases for consideration in this document. 3.1. Native Multicast This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two administrative domains and the peering point is also native multicast enabled - Figure 1. ------------------- ------------------- / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ @@ -261,29 +255,30 @@ AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System) AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source BR = Border Router I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP) I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast Advantages of this configuration are: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains. o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when compared to unicast transmissions. From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU + +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + in AD-2 is that it does not have the ability to count the number of End Users as well as the transmitted bytes delivered to them. This information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for generating this information need to be robust enough such that all pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond the scope of this document. @@ -307,26 +302,25 @@ to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted by contract. d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and formats of the collected information will be determined by directives from the source owner and the domain operators. e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should minimally follow guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems - -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control- plane and data-plane are described in section 6. +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case. There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across @@ -353,28 +347,28 @@ o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration. o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting. o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up. Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the following: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows: e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering points to support multicast delivery between domains. +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server) configuration in the source network is such that it only advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g., content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership). 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast Enabled @@ -398,27 +392,27 @@ AR = AMT Relay AG = AMT Gateway I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 Advantages of this configuration: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1. o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following: +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across the peering point. o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing policies. Disadvantages of this configuration: o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router technology cannot count the number of end users or the number of @@ -442,21 +436,21 @@ across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the (S, G) information from the EU. 3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD- 2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in Figure 3. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 ------------------- ------------------- / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / \ / Enabled) \ | +----+ | | | | | | +------+ | | | +----+ | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G| | | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+ \ +----+ / \ / @@ -488,21 +482,21 @@ o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across the peering point. o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing policies. o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 Disadvantages of this configuration: o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced into the transport path. o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD- 1. @@ -518,21 +512,21 @@ G) information to the Gateway for this purpose. e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast streams delivered to End Users in AD-2. 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2 This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 ------------------- ------------------- / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / \ / Enabled) \ | +----+ | |+--+ +--+ | | | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+ | | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G| | | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+ \ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ / @@ -562,21 +556,21 @@ AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4). o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT Relay in AD-1 to the AMT Gateway in the AMT node AGAR1 in AD-2. o AMT tunnels linking AMT node AGAR1 at peering point in AD-2 to other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel I2 -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in Figure 4. o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2: e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node AGAR2. The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the @@ -608,21 +602,21 @@ 4. Supporting Functionality Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in this section. Critical information parameters that need to be exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for consideration are as follows. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be agreed to between the two administrative domains to support multicast delivery. o Number of Peering Points. @@ -655,21 +649,21 @@ o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to support multicast delivery. 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal" source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes any unicast portion of the delivery, and o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance. This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless, the routing solution is expected to be: @@ -703,21 +697,21 @@ data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also contain alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast address of the stream. o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast stream [RFC4604]. To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points. o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity and Utilization. o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper multicast delivery across the peering points. 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point @@ -751,21 +745,21 @@ o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway. In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and activity statistics collection. This results in moving the replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication is still required for each requesting endpoint within the unicast-only network. o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an on End-Point - this may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The AMT Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Application via an Application Programming Interface (API). In @@ -781,39 +775,49 @@ point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned element. The two ADs can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay Anycast addresses with each other - though they may alternately decide to simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be an optimal solution in terms of scalability. Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 describe more complicated AMT situations as AD-2 is not multicast enabled. For these cases, the End User device needs to be able to setup an AMT tunnel in the most optimal manner. - Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT - Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the - multicast topology of the source. An example of a basic delivery - via an AMT Multicast process for these two Use Cases is as follows: + There are many methods by which relay selection can be done + including the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables + [RFC7450]. The choice of the method is implementation dependent and + is up to the network operators. Comparison of various methods is out + of scope for this document; it is for further study. + + An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries + and Anycast IP addresses process for Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 is + described here. Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows + for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest + edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is + strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network + operators. The basic process is as follows: o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" + +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream becomes unavailable. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay. o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo- address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to the source. @@ -837,30 +841,26 @@ protocol messages). o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed to that stream. o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content to the EU. - Note: Further routing discussion on optimal method to find "best AMT - Relay/GW combination" and information exchange between AD's to be - provided. +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines Back Office refers to the following: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs. o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering, provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc. 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be provisioned as follows: @@ -886,25 +886,25 @@ Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then: o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source). o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a client download site (note: this could be an Application Source site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source - would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is - provided (assuming multiple possible clients). -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is + provided (assuming multiple possible clients). o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2 AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group addresses for streams it is allowed to join. o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's multicast source. Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are stated as follows. @@ -933,21 +933,21 @@ associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications. Supporting guidelines are as follows: o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master account. o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g. customer accounts, security accounts, etc. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows. AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples of log types include the following: @@ -979,21 +979,21 @@ agreement). 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources (metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated guidelines are as follows: -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the multicast application source. o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be used to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example, AD-2 may permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 multicast service @@ -1025,21 +1025,21 @@ difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery degrades, then AD-2 needs to report the issue to AD-1. o When problem notification is received from a multicast application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting information include the following: o Kind of problem(s). o Starting point & duration of problem(s). o Conditions in which problem(s) occur. @@ -1073,21 +1073,21 @@ o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data. o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer (CP). o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to verify and validate the success of the fix. -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the multicast application source provider may have to be compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-2 based on the contract. 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines There are multiple options for instituting reliability architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should @@ -1122,21 +1122,21 @@ troubleshooting commands in a secure manner. The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general communications issues are stated as follows. o Appropriate communications channels will be established between the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic troubleshooting. o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods could be established depending on the severity of the identified trouble. 6. Security Considerations @@ -1171,31 +1171,33 @@ example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged between them. Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content is done at the application layer between the client application and the source. This may involve some kind of token authentication and is done at the application layer independently of the two AD's. If there are problems related to failure of token authentication when -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end servers querying the multicast application source provider's token authentication server are communicating properly) should be considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this document. 7. IANA Considerations + No considerations identified in this document + 8. Conclusions This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases. For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in @@ -1213,25 +1215,25 @@ [RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002 [RFC3618] B. Fenner, et al, "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol", RFC 3618, October 2003 [RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004 -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 - [RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 + [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006 [RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements", RFC 4609, August 2006 [RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450, @@ -1256,25 +1258,46 @@ [MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000 [Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code [draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace- v2-16, October 2016, work in progress -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 10. Acknowledgments -IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 + The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their + suggestions, comments, and corrections: + + Mikael Abrahamsson + + Hitoshi Asaeda + + Dale Carder + + Tim Chown + + Leonard Giuliano + + Jake Holland + + Joel Jaeggli + + Albert Manfredi + + Stig Venaas + +IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 Authors' Addresses Percy S. Tarapore AT&T Phone: 1-732-420-4172 Email: tarapore@att.com Robert Sayko AT&T