draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-09.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt 
MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft Robert Sayko Internet Draft Robert Sayko
Intended status: BCP AT&T Intended status: BCP AT&T
Expires: January 17, 2018 Greg Shepherd Expires: February 9, 2018 Greg Shepherd
Cisco Cisco
Toerless Eckert Toerless Eckert
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
SupportVectors SupportVectors
July 17, 2017 August 9, 2017
Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-09.txt draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 9, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
Enabled ...................................................... 10 Enabled ...................................................... 10
3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through
AD-2 ......................................................... 12 AD-2 ......................................................... 12
4. Supporting Functionality ..................................... 14 4. Supporting Functionality ..................................... 14
4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines .................. 15 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines .................. 15
4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects ................. 16 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects ................. 16
4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point .... 17 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point .... 17
4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels .................... 17 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels .................... 17
4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines
............................................................. 20 ............................................................. 19
4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines .......................... 20 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines .......................... 20
4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines ................ 21 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines ................ 21
4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines ........................ 22 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines ........................ 22
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines .. 25 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines .. 25
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics .............................. 25 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics .............................. 25
6. Security Considerations ...................................... 26 6. Security Considerations ...................................... 26
7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 27 7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 27
8. Conclusions .................................................. 27 8. Conclusions .................................................. 27
9. References ................................................... 27 9. References ................................................... 27
9.1. Normative References .................................... 27 9.1. Normative References .................................... 27
9.2. Informative References .................................. 28 9.2. Informative References .................................. 28
10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 28 10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live
video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery
via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such
content/data offers significant savings for utilization of resources content/data offers significant savings of utilization of resources
in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such
content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the
content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering
points. points.
The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold: The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:
o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for
setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data
across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases. across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases.
o Catalog all required information exchange between the o Catalog all required information exchange between the
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering
point. point.
o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native
multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2. multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2.
o It is understood that several protocols are available for this o It is understood that several protocols are available for this
purpose including PIM-SM [RFC4609], Protocol Independent purpose including PIM-SM [RFC4609], Protocol Independent
Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761],
Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810]. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the
multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under
this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the
receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to
the source without the need of invoking an intermediate the source without the need of invoking an intermediate
Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved
threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in
[RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is [RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is
recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter- recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter-
domain peering for ASM (Any-Source Multicast) is not in scope domain peering for ASM (Any-Source Multicast) is not in scope
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and
3.5). 3.5).
o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the
application level and is not considered to be a networking application level and is not considered to be a networking
issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or
inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document. inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document.
o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only
considered within the context of a cooperative process between considered within the context of a cooperative process between
the two domains. the two domains.
Thus, the primary purpose of this document is to describe a scenario Thus, the primary purpose of this document is to describe a scenario
where two ADs interconnect via a direct connection to each other. where two AD's interconnect via a direct connection to each other.
Security and operational aspects for exchanging traffic on a public Security and operational aspects for exchanging traffic on a public
Internet Exchange Point (IXP) with a large shared broadcast domain Internet Exchange Point (IXP) with a large shared broadcast domain
between many operators, is not in scope for this document. between many operators, is not in scope for this document.
This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering
process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement
is beyond the scope of this document. is beyond the scope of this document.
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport
A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows: A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
peering point. peering point.
o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end
native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by
one of two possible tunnel types: one of two possible tunnel types:
o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784]
allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450]. o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450].
o A service provider controls one or more application sources in o A service provider controls one or more application sources in
AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which
runs an application client compatible with the service runs an application client compatible with the service
provider's application source. provider's application source.
o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to
receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU. receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU.
The mechanisms by which the application client learns the The mechanisms by which the application client learns the
appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the
application, and are out of scope for this document. application, and are out of scope for this document.
Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 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 1 network operator domain). Alternately, domain 2 could also be an
operated by a single customer. The peering point architecture and Enterprise network domain operated by a single customer. The peering
requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the point architecture and requirements may have some unique aspects
Enterprise case. associated with the Enterprise case.
The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for
the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is
described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise
network possibility will be described in this section. A network possibility will be described in this section. Section 4
comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be contains a comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to
exchanged between the two domains to support various functions be exchanged between the two domains in order to support functions
enabling the application transport is provided in section 4. to enable the application transport.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast
The transport of applications using multicast requires that the The transport of applications using multicast requires that the
inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process. inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process.
There are five Use Cases for consideration in this document. There are five Use Cases for consideration in this document.
3.1. Native Multicast 3.1. Native Multicast
This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
Advantages of this configuration are: Advantages of this configuration are:
o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains. o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains.
o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when
compared to unicast transmissions. compared to unicast transmissions.
From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with
native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
in AD-2 is that it does not have the ability to count the number of 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 End Users as well as the transmitted bytes delivered to them. This
information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and
operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by
the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for
generating this information need to be robust enough such that all generating this information need to be robust enough such that all
pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator
are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated
accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non- accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non-
rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then
it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support
rate-adaption. rate-adaption.
c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two
domains is typically determined by local policies associated domains is typically determined by local policies associated
with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider
and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies
for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from AD-2. for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from, AD-2.
Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers
specified content to AD-2 only if such delivery has been specified content to AD-2 only if such delivery has been
accepted by contract. accepted by contract.
d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End
Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available
capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and
formats of the collected information will be determined by formats of the collected information will be determined by
directives from the source owner and the domain operators. directives from the source owner and the domain operators.
e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should minimally follow e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should, at a minimum,
guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems follow guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous
[BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast systems [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast
control-plane and data-plane are described in section 6. control-plane and data-plane are described in section 6.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel
The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case. The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case.
There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the
peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and
AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing
Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast
protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is
basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP
multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across
the GRE tunnel. the GRE tunnel.
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains although not o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains, although not
as efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case. as efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case.
o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream
when compared to unicast transmissions. when compared to unicast transmissions.
o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD- o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD-
1 and/or AD-2. 1 and/or AD-2.
o GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to o GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
implement. implement.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the
following: following:
Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows: Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows:
e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering
points to support multicast delivery between domains. points to support multicast delivery between domains.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server) f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server)
configuration in the source network is such that it only configuration in the source network is such that it only
advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the
entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery
of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g., of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g.,
content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership). content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership).
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
Enabled Enabled
Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be
native multicast enabled here; however the peering point is not. The native multicast enabled here; however, the peering point is not.
peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. The The peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. The
basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2. basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2.
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+ | | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+
| | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|->| AG |-------------|-->| EU | | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|->| AG |-------------|-->| EU |
| | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1. o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.
o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following: implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
the peering point. the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies. policies.
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router
technology cannot count the number of end users or the number technology cannot count the number of end users or the number
skipping to change at page 10, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be
configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery
between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically
across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the
(S, G) information from the EU. (S, G) information from the EU.
3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled 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 In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not
multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD- multicast enabled. Hence, the interconnection between AD-2 and the
2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in End User is also not multicast enabled. This Use Case is depicted in
Figure 3. Figure 3.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \ / \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | | +----+ | | | +------+ | | | +----+
| | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G| | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
the peering point. the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies. policies.
o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also 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. able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced
into the transport path. into the transport path.
o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU
Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD- Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-
1. 1.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
G) information to the Gateway for this purpose. G) information to the Gateway for this purpose.
e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for
the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
streams delivered to End Users in AD-2. streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.
3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through 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: This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \ / \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | |+--+ +--+ | | +----+ | |+--+ +--+ |
| | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+ | | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+
| | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G| | | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+
\ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ / \ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of
AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and 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 an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering
point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4). point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).
o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT 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. 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 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 other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
I2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 I2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2
in Figure 4. in Figure 4.
o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in
device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2: 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 e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node
AGAR2. AGAR2.
The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the
total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly
thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a single reduced, thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a
unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly, an single unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly,
unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4. However, an unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4.
this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be dynamically However, this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be
configured by the various AMT Gateways based solely on the (S,G) dynamically configured by the various AMT Gateways based solely on
information received from the application client at the EU device. A the (S,G) information received from the application client at the EU
suitable mechanism for such dynamic configurations is therefore device. A suitable mechanism for such dynamic configurations is
critical. therefore critical.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use
Case 3.1. Case 3.1.
d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such
that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT
nodes in AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes in AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT
nodes as appropriate. The application client in the EU device is nodes as appropriate. The application client in the EU device is
skipping to change at page 14, line 44 skipping to change at page 14, line 47
e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for
the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
streams delivered to End Users in AD-2. streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.
4. Supporting Functionality 4. Supporting Functionality
Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point
that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in
this section. Critical information parameters that need to be this section. Critical information parameters that need to be
exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated, along with
guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for
consideration are as follows. consideration are as follows.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines
The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the
interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The
following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be
agreed to between the two administrative domains to support agreed to between the two administrative domains to support
multicast delivery. multicast delivery.
o Number of Peering Points. o Number of Peering Points.
skipping to change at page 15, line 31 skipping to change at page 15, line 33
via another ISP. via another ISP.
o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will
be used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at be used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at
these points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4271] and these points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4271] and
MBGP [RFC4271]. MBGP [RFC4271].
o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then
there needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth there needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth
reserved for multicast delivery. When determining the reserved for multicast delivery. When determining the
appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider that appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider use
design of a multicast protocol suitable for live video of a multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming that
streaming which is consistent with Congestion Control is consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41].
Principles [BCP41], especially in the presence of potentially
malicious receivers, is still an open research problem.
o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be
specified in an SLA. specified in an SLA.
o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for
provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to
support multicast delivery. support multicast delivery.
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines
The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that
the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal" the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal"
source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically: source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically:
o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes
any unicast portion of the delivery, and any unicast portion of the delivery, and
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance. o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance.
This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual
methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless, methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless,
the routing solution is expected to be: the routing solution is expected:
o Scalable, o To be scalable,
o Avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, and o To avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications,
and
o Be robust enough to achieve high reliability and automatically o To be robust enough to achieve high reliability and
adjust to changes/problems in the multicast infrastructure. automatically adjust to changes/problems in the multicast
infrastructure.
For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as
possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some
cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different
peering points, but that is entirely an implementation issue. peering points. However, that is entirely an implementation issue.
4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects
Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains
coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their
network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An
example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across
two administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the two Administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the
interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled: interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled:
o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a
subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This information is in subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This information is in
the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the
EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, as
also additional information for the application about the source well as additional information for the application about the
location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G" source location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the
data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the "S,G" data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of
source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also contain the source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also
alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast contain alternate delivery information such as specifying the
address of the stream. unicast address of the stream.
o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
stream [RFC4604]. stream [RFC4604].
To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following: To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following:
o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points. o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity
and Utilization. and Utilization.
o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper
multicast delivery across the peering points. multicast delivery across the peering points.
4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point
If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and
both ADs are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to both AD's are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to
provision a GRE tunnel between the two ADs - see Use Case 3.2.2. provision a GRE tunnel between the two AD's - see Use Case 3.2.2.
The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network
engineering decision, but generally will be between the border engineering decision, but generally will be between the border
routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source
(or source access router). The GRE tunnel would allow end-to-end (or source access router). The GRE tunnel would allow end-to-end
native multicast or AMT multicast to traverse the interface. native multicast or AMT multicast to traverse the interface.
Coordination and advertisement of the source IP is still required. Coordination and advertisement of the source IP is still required.
The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1 The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1
to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points. to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points.
4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels
Unlike Native (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast environment is Unlike Native Multicast (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast
more complex. It presents a dual layered problem because there are environment is more complex. It presents a dual layered problem
two criteria that should be simultaneously met: because there are two criteria that should be simultaneously met:
o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has
multicast connectivity to the content source, and multicast connectivity to the content source, and
o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance. o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.
There are essentially two components to the AMT specification: There are essentially two components to the AMT specification:
o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast
traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will traffic to the receivers (i.e., End-Points). The AMT Relay will
receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and
will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT
Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast
packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway. packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway.
In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and
activity statistics collection. This results in moving the activity statistics collection. This results in moving the
replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on
traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding
unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication
is still required for each requesting endpoint within the
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
is still required for each requesting End-Point within the
unicast-only network. unicast-only network.
o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an on End-Point - o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an End-Point - this
this may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The AMT
AMT Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Application
Application via an Application Programming Interface (API). In via an Application Programming Interface (API). In this manner,
this manner, the Gateway allows the endpoint to conduct itself the Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true
as a true Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT
AMT messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel (across
(across the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay. the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay.
The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that
are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled ADs. An AMT are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled AD's. An AMT
tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the
peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering
point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is
established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned
element. The two ADs can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay element. The two AD's can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay
Anycast addresses with each other - though they may alternately Anycast addresses with each other. Alternately, they may decide to
decide to simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be an
an optimal solution in terms of scalability. optimal solution in terms of scalability.
Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 describe more complicated AMT situations as 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 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. needs to be able to setup an AMT tunnel in the most optimal manner.
There are many methods by which relay selection can be done There are many methods by which relay selection can be done
including the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables including the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables
[RFC7450]. The choice of the method is implementation dependent and [RFC7450]. The choice of the method is implementation dependent and
is up to the network operators. Comparison of various methods is out is up to the network operators. Comparison of various methods is out
of scope for this document; it is for further study. of scope for this document; it is for further study.
skipping to change at page 19, line 6 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network
operators. The basic process is as follows: operators. The basic process is as follows:
o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The
metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an
ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested
stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the
group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S"
portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the
multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate
delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of
the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream
becomes unavailable. becomes unavailable.
o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information
provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in
order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay. 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 o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a
skipping to change at page 20, line 9 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
to that stream. to that stream.
o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel
between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content
to the EU. to the EU.
4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines
Back Office refers to the following: Back Office refers to the following:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery
of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs. of applications via multicast and interactions between AD's.
o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering, o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering,
provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc. provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.
4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines
Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be Resources for basic connectivity between AD's Providers need to be
provisioned as follows: provisioned as follows:
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
delivery across ADs. delivery across AD's.
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
all supporting back-offices of the ADs as appropriate. This all supporting back-offices of the AD's as appropriate. This
includes activating proper security treatment for these back- includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate. office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.
o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support
these. these.
Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain
delivery are as follows. delivery are as follows.
The ability to receive requested application via multicast is The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata. Hence, this triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata. Hence, this
metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and
unicast fallback if applicable. AD-2 must enable the delivery of unicast fallback if applicable. AD-2 must enable the delivery of
this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this
purpose. purpose.
Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across
many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If, however, native
multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then: 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 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 from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or
AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source). AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).
o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a 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 client download site (note: this could be an Application Source
site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source
would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is
provided (assuming multiple possible clients). provided (assuming multiple possible clients).
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2 o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2
AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group
addresses for streams it is allowed to join. addresses for streams it is allowed to join.
o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to 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 locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and
shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's
multicast source. multicast source.
Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are
stated as follows. stated as follows.
skipping to change at page 21, line 32 skipping to change at page 21, line 33
AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g. AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g.
to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways: to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways:
o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that
operations and customer care continue using their own systems. operations and customer care continue using their own systems.
This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate
provisioning of necessary resources. provisioning of necessary resources.
o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access
directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional
provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD's
to support this option. to support this option.
4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines
All interactions between pairs of ADs can be discovered and/or be All interactions between pairs of AD's can be discovered and/or be
associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications. associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.
Supporting guidelines are as follows: Supporting guidelines are as follows:
o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master
account. account.
o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple
accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g. accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.
customer accounts, security accounts, etc. customer accounts, security accounts, etc.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines
Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of
interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged interconnecting AD's requires that appropriate logs will be
between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows. exchanged between them in support. Associated guidelines are as
follows.
AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples
of log types include the following: of log types include the following:
o Usage information logs at aggregate level. o Usage information logs at aggregate level.
o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level. o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
o Grouped or sequenced application access. o Grouped or sequenced application access.
performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support
potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of
aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets
of software download. of software download.
o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement
(with additional detail potentially provided during security (with additional detail potentially provided during security
events, by agreement). events, by agreement).
o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting. o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting.
o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for
shared troubleshooting. shared troubleshooting.
o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared
troubleshooting. troubleshooting.
The two ADs may supply additional security logs to each other as The two AD's may supply additional security logs to each other as
agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following: agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following:
o Information related to general security-relevant activity which o Information related to general security-relevant activity which
may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as
types and counts of attacks detected, related source information, types and counts of attacks detected, related source information,
related target information, etc. related target information, etc.
o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with
additional detail potentially provided during security events, by additional detail potentially provided during security events, by
agreement). agreement).
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines
Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to
multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided
by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
(metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated (metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated
guidelines are as follows: guidelines are as follows:
o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service
performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides
relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to
create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the
multicast application source. multicast application source.
o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be
skipping to change at page 23, line 25 skipping to change at page 23, line 30
own probes and relay performance information back to AD-1. own probes and relay performance information back to AD-1.
o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1 o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1
may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA
agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2 agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2
if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network. if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network.
Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole) Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole)
provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source
provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service
problems occur. EU's direct their complaints to the source provider; problems occur. EUs direct their complaints to the source provider;
in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The
responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1 responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1
will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its
own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools
to monitor multicast service status in its own network. to monitor multicast service status in its own network.
o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service
monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of
monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to
inform each other when multicast delivery problems are inform each other when multicast delivery problems are
detected. detected.
o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example, o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example,
for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be
experiencing difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem experiencing difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem
by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If
the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery
degrades, then AD-2 needs to report the issue to AD-1. degrades, then AD-2 needs to report the issue to AD-1.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o When problem notification is received from a multicast o When problem notification is received from a multicast
application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the
problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If 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 the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all
necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting
information include the following: information include the following:
o Kind of problem(s). o Kind of problem(s).
o Starting point & duration of problem(s). o Starting point & duration of problem(s).
skipping to change at page 24, line 46 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a
series of tests over a period of time. series of tests over a period of time.
o Analysis of test results. o Analysis of test results.
o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data. o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data.
o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer
(CP). (CP).
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the
problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to
verify and validate the success of the fix. verify and validate the success of the fix.
o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the
multicast application source provider may have to be multicast application source provider may have to be
compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be
compensated by AD-2 based on the contract. compensated by AD-2 based on the contract.
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines
skipping to change at page 25, line 31 skipping to change at page 25, line 37
Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should
have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast
troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly. troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly.
Issues may become apparent or identified either through network Issues may become apparent or identified either through network
monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described
in section 4.4. in section 4.4.
It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected
according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However, according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However,
given that inter-domain creates a significant interdependence of given that inter-domain multicast creates a significant
proper networking functionality between providers there does exist a interdependence of proper networking functionality between providers
need for providers to be able to signal/alert each other if there there does exist a need for providers to be able to signal/alert
are any issues noted by either one. each other if there are any issues noted by either one.
Service providers may also wish to allow limited read-only Service providers may also wish to allow limited read-only
administrative access to their routers via a looking-glass style administrative access to their routers via a looking-glass style
router proxy to facilitate the debugging of multicast control state router proxy to facilitate the debugging of multicast control state
and peering status. Software implementations for this purpose is and peering status. Software implementations for this purpose is
readily available [Traceroute], [draft-MTraceroute] and can be readily available [Traceroute], [draft-MTraceroute] and can be
easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast
troubleshooting commands in a secure manner. troubleshooting commands in a secure manner.
The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of
this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general
communications issues are stated as follows. communications issues are stated as follows.
o Appropriate communications channels will be established between o Appropriate communications channels will be established between
the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to
facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic
troubleshooting. troubleshooting.
o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open
issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods
could be established depending on the severity of the could be established depending on the severity of the
identified trouble. identified trouble.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected
to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to
registered and authenticated end users. Additionally: registered and authenticated end users. Additionally:
o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement
if dedicated for multicast delivery. for multicast delivery.
o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security
breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for
shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic
over alternated peering points. It is also expected that over alternative peering points. It is also expected that
appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of
securing the identified breach. securing the identified breach.
DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication
should be the responsibility of the multicast application source should be the responsibility of the multicast application source
provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate
agreements with the source provider. agreements with the source provider.
Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication
and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with
normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security
and network security. and network security.
AD-1 and AD-2 should have mechanisms in place to ensure proper AD-1 and AD-2 should have mechanisms in place to ensure proper
accounting for the volume of bytes delivered through the peering accounting for the volume of bytes delivered through the peering
point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs. For point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs. For
example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to
ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged
between them. between them.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content
is done at the application layer between the client application and is done at the application layer between the client application and
the source. This may involve some kind of token authentication 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 is done at the application layer independently of the two AD's. If
there are problems related to failure of token authentication when there are problems related to failure of token authentication when
end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating
proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end
servers querying the multicast application source provider's token servers querying the multicast application source provider's token
authentication server are communicating properly) should be authentication server are communicating properly) should be
considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this
skipping to change at page 27, line 46 skipping to change at page 28, line 5
[RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol, [RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002 Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002
[RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004
[RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", [RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 4271, January 2006 RFC 4271, January 2006
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
[RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management
Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery
Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604,
August 2006 August 2006
[RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse [RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements", Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements",
RFC 4609, August 2006 RFC 4609, August 2006
[RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450, [RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
skipping to change at page 28, line 40 skipping to change at page 29, line 5
[MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D [MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D
draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000 draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000
[Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code [Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code
[draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version [draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version
2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace- 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-
v2-16, October 2016, work in progress v2-16, October 2016, work in progress
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
suggestions, comments, and corrections: suggestions, comments, and corrections:
Mikael Abrahamsson Mikael Abrahamsson
Hitoshi Asaeda Hitoshi Asaeda
Dale Carder Dale Carder
Tim Chown Tim Chown
Leonard Giuliano Leonard Giuliano
Jake Holland Jake Holland
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 30, line 4
Leonard Giuliano Leonard Giuliano
Jake Holland Jake Holland
Joel Jaeggli Joel Jaeggli
Albert Manfredi Albert Manfredi
Stig Venaas Stig Venaas
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Percy S. Tarapore Percy S. Tarapore
AT&T AT&T
Phone: 1-732-420-4172 Phone: 1-732-420-4172
Email: tarapore@att.com Email: tarapore@att.com
Robert Sayko Robert Sayko
AT&T AT&T
Phone: 1-732-420-3292 Phone: 1-732-420-3292
 End of changes. 73 change blocks. 
91 lines changed or deleted 160 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/