draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11.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: February 9, 2018 Greg Shepherd Expires: March 28, 2018 Greg Shepherd
Cisco Cisco
Toerless Eckert Toerless Eckert
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
SupportVectors SupportVectors
August 9, 2017 September 28, 2017
Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11.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 February 9, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 28, 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 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM) This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
process. process.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3 1. Introduction .................................................. 3
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport ...... 4 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport ...... 5
3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast ......... 6 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast ......... 6
3.1. Native Multicast ......................................... 6 3.1. Native Multicast ......................................... 6
3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel .................... 8 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel .................... 8
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
Enabled ....................................................... 9 Enabled ....................................................... 9
3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast 3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast
Enabled ...................................................... 10 Enabled ...................................................... 11
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 ......................................................... 13
4. Supporting Functionality ..................................... 14 4. Functional Guidelines ........................................ 15
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 .................. 16
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
............................................................. 19 ............................................................. 20
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 ................ 22
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 Guidelines23
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 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 ................................................... 28
9.1. Normative References .................................... 27 9.1. Normative References .................................... 28
9.2. Informative References .................................. 28 9.2. Informative References .................................. 29
10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 29 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 of 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 47 skipping to change at page 3, line 47
The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows: The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows:
o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point" o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point"
refers to an interface between two networks/administrative refers to an interface between two networks/administrative
domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A
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 and Protocol Independent Multicast -
Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Internet Group
Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Multicast Listener
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810]. Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 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-
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 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 AD's interconnect via a direct connection to each other. where two AD's interconnect via a a peering point with 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.
It may be possible to have a configuration whereby a transit domain
(AD-3) interconnects AD-1 and AD-2. Such a configuration adds
complexity and may require manual provisioning if, for example, AD-3
is not multicast enabled. This configuration is out of cope for this
document; it is for further study.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
multicast transport protocol. multicast transport protocol.
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.
The assumption here is that AD-1 has ultimate responsibility for
delivering the multicast based service on behalf of the content
source(s). All relevant interactions between the two domains
described in this document are based on this assumption.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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). Alternately, domain 2 could also be an 1 network operator domain). Alternately, domain 2 could also be an
Enterprise network domain operated by a single customer. The peering Enterprise network domain operated by a single customer. The peering
point architecture and requirements may have some unique aspects point architecture and requirements may have some unique aspects
associated with the 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. Section 4 network possibility will be described in this section. Section 4
contains a comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to contains a comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to
be exchanged between the two domains in order to support functions be exchanged between the two domains in order to support functions
to enable the application transport. 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
administrative domains and the peering point is also native administrative domains and the peering point is also native
multicast enabled - Figure 1. multicast enabled - Figure 1.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+ | | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+
| | AS |------>| BR |-|---------|->| BR |-------------|-->| EU | | | AS |------>| BR |-|---------|->| BR |-------------|-->| EU |
| | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP) I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP)
I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection
Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast
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 an AMT enabled peering point.
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.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended
as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility. as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled
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
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 34
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, at a minimum, e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should, at a minimum,
follow guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous follow guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous
systems [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:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 an AMT enabled peering point.
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 (the two Border Routers in Figure 1 do not need
to be the two "unicast" domain border routers; instead they can
be anywhere in AD-1 and 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.
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the o Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the
number of end users or the number bytes transmitted. number of end users or the number bytes transmitted.
o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration. o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
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. native multicast enabled here; however, the peering point is not.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
The 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 |
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
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
of bytes transmitted to all end users. of bytes transmitted to all end users.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be
introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated
in the existing routing nodes. in the existing routing nodes.
o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically
select the optimal AR. select the optimal AR.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 32
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. Hence, the interconnection between AD-2 and the multicast enabled. Hence, the interconnection between AD-2 and the
End User is also not multicast enabled. This Use Case is 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 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
AS = Application Multicast Source AS = Application Multicast Source
AR = AMT Relay AR = AMT Relay
EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast
Enabled AD-2. Enabled AD-2.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
Figure 3 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway Figure 3 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway
This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the
application through AD-2. The total number of AMT tunnels would be application through AD-2. The total number of AMT tunnels would be
equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application. equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application.
The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT
tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the
data usage associated with each End User. data usage associated with each End User.
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 32
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:
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 AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the that the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the
correct AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points. The correct AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points. The
application client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S, application client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S,
G) information to the Gateway for this purpose. G) information to the Gateway for this purpose.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 13, line 40 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire
network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1 network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1
through the peering point. Depending on the number of End Users, through the peering point. Depending on the number of End Users,
there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels
- and unicast streams - through the peering point. This situation - and unicast streams - through the peering point. This situation
can be alleviated as follows: can be alleviated as follows:
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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly
skipping to change at page 14, line 42 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
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
expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this
purpose. 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.
4. Supporting Functionality IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
4. Functional Guidelines
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.
o Peering Point Addresses and Locations. o Peering Point Addresses and Locations.
o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared
with other services. with other services.
o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or
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 [RFC4760] and
MBGP [RFC4271]. MBGP [RFC4760].
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 use appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider use
of a multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming that of a multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming that
is consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41]. is consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41].
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.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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: the routing solution is expected:
o To be scalable, o To be scalable,
o To avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, o To avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications,
and and
skipping to change at page 16, line 44 skipping to change at page 17, line 4
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, as EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, as
well as additional information for the application about the well as additional information for the application about the
source location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the source location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the
"S,G" data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of "S,G" data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of
the source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also the source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
contain alternate delivery information such as specifying the contain alternate delivery information such as specifying the
unicast 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 AD's are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to both AD's are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to
skipping to change at page 17, line 41 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
environment is more complex. It presents a dual layered problem environment is more complex. It presents a dual layered problem
because there are 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:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points August 2017
is still required for each requesting End-Point within the 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 End-Point - this o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an End-Point - this
may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The AMT may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The AMT
Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Application Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Application
via an Application Programming Interface (API). In this manner, via an Application Programming Interface (API). In this manner,
the Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true the Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true
Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT
messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel (across messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel (across
skipping to change at page 18, line 43 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
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.
An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries 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 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 described here. Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows
for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is
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 19, line 41 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP
address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required). address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required).
Variations may exist as well. Variations may exist as well.
o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three- o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three-
way handshake with the AMT Relay. way handshake with the AMT Relay.
o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT
protocol messages). protocol messages).
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join 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 the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed
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 AD's. 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 AD's Providers need to be Resources for basic connectivity between AD's Providers need to be
provisioned as follows: provisioned as follows:
skipping to change at page 20, line 36 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
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.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 36 skipping to change at page 22, line 5
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's access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD's
to support this option. to support this option.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines
All interactions between pairs of AD's 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 AD's requires that appropriate logs will be interconnecting AD's requires that appropriate logs will be
exchanged between them in support. Associated guidelines are as exchanged between them in support. Associated guidelines are as
follows. 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:
skipping to change at page 22, line 38 skipping to change at page 23, line 4
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 AD's 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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 39 skipping to change at page 24, line 4
provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service
problems occur. EUs 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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 39 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
multicast service delivery problems. Examples of various multicast service delivery problems. Examples of various
factors for consideration include: factors for consideration include:
o Verification that the service configuration matches the o Verification that the service configuration matches the
product features. product features.
o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer
problems and resource troubles into a single root service problems and resource troubles into a single root service
problem. problem.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving
consideration to problem impact, service level agreement, consideration to problem impact, service level agreement,
etc. etc.
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 39 skipping to change at page 26, line 4
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 multicast creates a significant given that inter-domain multicast creates a significant
interdependence of proper networking functionality between providers interdependence of proper networking functionality between providers
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
there does exist a need for providers to be able to signal/alert there does exist a need for providers to be able to signal/alert
each other if there 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
skipping to change at page 26, line 38 skipping to change at page 27, line 4
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 alternative 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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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 34 skipping to change at page 27, line 49
This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case
scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across
peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of
guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases. guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases.
For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is
recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the
various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in 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 as AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as
appropriate. Section 4.3 provides an overview of one method that appropriate. Section 4.2 provides an overview of one method that
finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an
Anycast IP address for AMT Relays. Anycast IP address for AMT Relays.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina, [RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000
[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)", [RFC4760] T. Bates, et al, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC
RFC 4271, January 2006 4760, January 2007
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
skipping to change at page 28, line 30 skipping to change at page 29, line 5
Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised), RFC 7761, March Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised), RFC 7761, March
2016 2016
[BCP38] P. Ferguson, et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating [BCP38] P. Ferguson, et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating
Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing",
BCP: 38, May 2000 BCP: 38, May 2000
[BCP41] S. Floyd, "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, September [BCP41] S. Floyd, "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, September
2000 2000
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a [INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a
Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010, Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010,
December 2012 December 2012
[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
skipping to change at page 30, line 5 skipping to change at page 30, line 5
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 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 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
 End of changes. 74 change blocks. 
92 lines changed or deleted 105 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/