draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-12.txt 
MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft Robert Sayko MBONED Working Group P. Tarapore, Ed.
Intended status: BCP AT&T Internet-Draft R. Sayko
Expires: March 28, 2018 Greg Shepherd Intended status: Best Current Practice AT&T
Cisco Expires: April 30, 2018 G. Shepherd
Toerless Eckert Cisco
T. Eckert, Ed.
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Ram Krishnan R. Krishnan
SupportVectors SupportVectors
September 28, 2017 October 27, 2017
Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11.txt draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-12
Status of this Memo Abstract
This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
process.
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 https://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
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 28, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 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 (https://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
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
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
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
than English. than English.
Abstract
This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
process.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport ...... 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains
Enabled ....................................................... 9 Multicast 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 ...................................................... 11 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 ......................................................... 13 AD-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Functional Guidelines ........................................ 15 4. Functional Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines 13
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines .................. 16 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects ................. 16 4.2.1. Native Multicast Routing Aspects . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point .... 17 4.2.2. GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point . . . . 15
4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels ................. 17 4.2.3. Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging
............................................................. 20 Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines .......................... 20 4.3.1. Provisioning Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines ................ 22 4.3.2. Application Accounting Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines ........................ 22 4.3.3. Log Management Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines23 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring
Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines . 23
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 1. Introduction
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines .. 25 Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live video
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics .............................. 25 streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery via
6. Security Considerations ...................................... 26 multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such content/
7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 27 data offers significant savings of utilization of resources in any
8. Conclusions .................................................. 27 given administrative domain. End user demand for such content/data
9. References ................................................... 28 is growing. Often, this requires transporting the content/data
9.1. Normative References .................................... 28 across administrative domains via inter-domain peering points.
9.2. Informative References .................................. 29
10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 29
1. Introduction The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:
Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for
video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data
via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases.
content/data offers significant savings of utilization of resources
in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such
content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the
content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering
points.
The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold: o Catalog all required information exchange between the
o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery. This
setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support
across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases. inter-domain peering with multicast.
o Catalog all required information exchange between the
administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery.
This enables operators to initiate necessary processes to
support inter-domain peering with multicast.
The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows: 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
refers to an interface between two networks/administrative to an interface between two networks/administrative domains over
domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A which traffic is exchanged between them. A Network-Network
Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering point.
point.
o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native
multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2.
o It is understood that several protocols are available for this
purpose including PIM-SM and Protocol Independent Multicast -
Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native multicast.
A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2.
o It is understood that several protocols are available for this
purpose including PIM-SM and Protocol Independent Multicast -
Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].
o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the multicast
stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under this
condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the receiver's
upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to the source
without the need of invoking an intermediate Rendezvous Point
(RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved threat mitigation
profile against attack, as described in [RFC4609]. Hence, in the
case of inter-domain peering, it is recommended to use only SSM
protocols; the setup of inter- domain peering for ASM (Any-Source
Multicast) is not in scope for this document.
o AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols. The use
of different protocols is beyond the scope of this document.
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the
peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not multicast
enabled. It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be available to a
client for multicast delivery. The selection of an optimal AMT
relay by a client is out of scope for this document. Note that
AMT use is necessary only when native multicast is unavailable in
the peering point (Use Case 3.3) or in the downstream
administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and 3.5).
o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the
application level and is not considered to be a networking issue.
The settlements process for end user billing and/or inter-provider
billing is out of scope for this document.
o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only
considered within the context of a cooperative process between the
two domains.
o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the
multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under
this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the
receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to
the source without the need of invoking an intermediate
Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved
threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in
[RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is
recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter-
domain peering for ASM (Any-Source Multicast) is not in scope
for this document.
o AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols. The
use of different protocols is beyond the scope of this
document.
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the
peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not
multicast enabled. It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be
available to a client for multicast delivery. The selection of
an optimal AMT relay by a client is out of scope for this
document. Note that AMT use is necessary only when native
multicast is unavailable in the peering point (Use Case 3.3) or
in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and
3.5).
o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the
application level and is not considered to be a networking
issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or
inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document.
o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only
considered within the context of a cooperative process between
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 a peering point with 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 It may be possible to have a configuration whereby a transit domain
(AD-3) interconnects AD-1 and AD-2. Such a configuration adds (AD-3) interconnects AD-1 and AD-2. Such a configuration adds
complexity and may require manual provisioning if, for example, AD-3 complexity and may require manual provisioning if, for example, AD-3
is not multicast enabled. This configuration is out of cope for this is not multicast enabled. This configuration is out of cope for this
document; it is for further study. 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:
o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
peering point. o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end peering point.
native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by
one of two possible tunnel types: o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end native
o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by one of two
allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or possible tunnel types:
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450].
o A service provider controls one or more application sources in o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] allowing
AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more multicast tunneling across the peering point, or
(S,G)s. It is assumed that the service being provided is
suitable for delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450].
of popular events, software downloads to many devices, etc.),
and that the packet streams will be part of a suitable o A service provider controls one or more application sources in
multicast transport protocol. AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more (S,G)s.
o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which It is assumed that the service being provided is suitable for
runs an application client compatible with the service delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming of popular
provider's application source. events, software downloads to many devices, etc.), and that the
o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to packet streams will be part of a suitable multicast transport
receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU. protocol.
The mechanisms by which the application client learns the
appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which runs
application, and are out of scope for this document. an application client compatible with the service provider's
application source.
o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to
receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU. The
mechanisms by which the application client learns the appropriate
(S,G)s are an implementation detail of the application, and are
out of scope for this document.
The assumption here is that AD-1 has ultimate responsibility for The assumption here is that AD-1 has ultimate responsibility for
delivering the multicast based service on behalf of the content delivering the multicast based service on behalf of the content
source(s). All relevant interactions between the two domains source(s). All relevant interactions between the two domains
described in this document are based on this assumption. 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 1
network operator domain). Alternately, domain 2 could also be an
Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier Enterprise network domain operated by a single customer. The peering
1 network operator domain). Alternately, domain 2 could also be an
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
the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is 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
to enable the application transport. enable the application transport.
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
multicast enabled - Figure 1. 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 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System) AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source
BR = Border Router BR = Border Router
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 an AMT enabled peering point. 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
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
as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility. 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
accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non- by the two domains to permit the transit of non- rate adaptive
rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then it is
it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support recommended that the multicast traffic should support rate-
rate-adaption. 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
with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider and AD-2
and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies for
for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from, AD-2. 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
accepted by contract. by contract.
d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End Users
Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in
capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and the application layer. The precise nature and formats of the
formats of the collected information will be determined by collected information will be determined by directives from the
directives from the source owner and the domain operators. 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
follow guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems
systems [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control-
control-plane and data-plane are described in section 6. plane and data-plane are described in section 6.
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 as
efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case.
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains, although not
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
when compared to an AMT enabled peering point. 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
1 and/or AD-2 (the two Border Routers in Figure 1 do not need and/or AD-2 (the two Border Routers in Figure 1 do not need to be
to be the two "unicast" domain border routers; instead they can the two "unicast" domain border routers; instead they can be
be anywhere in AD-1 and AD-2). 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.
o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting. o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting.
o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up. o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up.
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.
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
native multicast enabled here; however, the peering point is not.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be native
multicast enabled here; however, the peering point is not.
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 |
| | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
AR = AMT Relay AR = AMT Relay
AG = AMT Gateway AG = AMT Gateway
I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection
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:
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across the
the peering point. 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
of bytes transmitted to all end users. 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
introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated into the path if these services are not incorporated in the
in the existing routing nodes. existing routing nodes.
o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically select
select the optimal AR. 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
Case 3.1. In addition, Case 3.1. In addition,
e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be configured
configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery at the peering points to support multicast delivery between
between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically across the
across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the (S, G)
(S, G) information from the EU. 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.
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ 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 10, line 49
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
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:
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:
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across the
the peering point. 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.
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
that the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the correct
correct AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points. The AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points. The application
application client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S, client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S, G)
G) information to the Gateway for this purpose. 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
the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast 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:
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ 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|
skipping to change at page 13, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 27
AS = Application Source AS = Application Source
AR = AMT Relay in AD-1 AR = AMT Relay in AD-1
AGAR1 = AMT Gateway/Relay node in AD-2 across Peering Point AGAR1 = AMT Gateway/Relay node in AD-2 across Peering Point
I1 = AMT Tunnel Connecting AR in AD-1 to GW in AGAR1 in AD-2 I1 = AMT Tunnel Connecting AR in AD-1 to GW in AGAR1 in AD-2
AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge
I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2 I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2
EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2 I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2
Figure 4 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway Figure 4: - AMT Tunnel Connecting AMT Relay and Relays
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 an
AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).
an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering
point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).
o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT 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 I2
I2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in
in Figure 4. 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
total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced, thus
reduced, thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a single unicast
single unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly, stream across the peering point instead of possibly, an unacceptably
an unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4. large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4. However, this implies
However, this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be that several AMT tunnels will need to be dynamically configured by
dynamically configured by the various AMT Gateways based solely on the various AMT Gateways based solely on the (S,G) information
the (S,G) information received from the application client at the EU received from the application client at the EU device. A suitable
device. A suitable mechanism for such dynamic configurations is mechanism for such dynamic configurations is therefore 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
that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT 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
the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for the
purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.
4. Functional Guidelines 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.
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
multicast delivery. delivery.
o Number of Peering Points.
o Peering Point Addresses and Locations. o Number of Peering Points.
o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared o Peering Point Addresses and Locations.
with other services.
o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared with
via another ISP. other services.
o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or via
be used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at another ISP.
these points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4760] and
MBGP [RFC4760].
o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will be
there needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at these
reserved for multicast delivery. When determining the points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4760] and MBGP
appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider use [RFC4760].
of a multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming that
is consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41].
o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then there
specified in an SLA. needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth reserved for
multicast delivery. When determining the appropriate bandwidth
allocation, parties should consider use of a multicast protocol
suitable for live video streaming that is consistent with
Congestion Control Principles [BCP41].
o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be
provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to specified in an SLA.
support multicast delivery.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for
provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to support
multicast delivery.
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines 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
any unicast portion of the delivery, and unicast portion of the delivery, and
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
o To be robust enough to achieve high reliability and o To be robust enough to achieve high reliability and automatically
automatically adjust to changes/problems in the multicast adjust to changes/problems in the multicast infrastructure.
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. However, 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
the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the EU
EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, as client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, as well
well as additional information for the application about the as additional information for the application about the source
source location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G"
"S,G" data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the
the source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also contain
alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 address of the stream.
contain alternate delivery information such as specifying the
unicast address of the stream.
o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
stream [RFC4604].
To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following: o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
stream [RFC4604]. To facilitate this process, the two AD's need
to do the following:
o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points. o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points.
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
provision a GRE tunnel between the two AD's - 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
to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points. 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 Multicast (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast Unlike Native Multicast (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast
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
multicast connectivity to the content source, and connectivity to the content source, and
o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.
There are essentially two components to the AMT specification: o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 There are essentially two components to the AMT specification
o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast 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
packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway. and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway. In
In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and activity
activity statistics collection. This results in moving the statistics collection. This results in moving the replication
replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on point closer to the end user, and cuts down on traffic across the
traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding network. Thus, the linear costs of adding unicast subscribers can
unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication be avoided. However, unicast replication is still required for
is still required for each requesting End-Point within the 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 AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an End-Point - this may
may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The AMT 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
via an Application Programming Interface (API). In this manner, an Application Programming Interface (API). In this manner, the
the Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true Multicast
Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT messages into UDP
messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel (across packets and send them through a tunnel (across the unicast-only
the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay. 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 AD's. 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 AD's can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay element. The two AD's can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay
Anycast addresses with each other. Alternately, they may decide to Anycast addresses with each other. Alternately, they may decide to
simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be an simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be an optimal
optimal solution in terms of scalability. 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
including the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables [RFC7450]. The
[RFC7450]. The choice of the method is implementation dependent and choice of the method is implementation dependent and is up to the
is up to the network operators. Comparison of various methods is out network operators. Comparison of various methods is out of scope for
of scope for this document; it is for further study. this document; it is for further study.
An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries
and Anycast IP addresses process for Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 is
described here. Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows
for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is
strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network
operators. The basic process is as follows:
o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries and
metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an Anycast IP addresses process for Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 is described
ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested here. Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT
stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the
group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" multicast topology of the source. Note that this is strictly
portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network
multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream operators. The basic process is as follows:
originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate
delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of
the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream
becomes unavailable.
o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application.
provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in The metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an
order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay. ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested
stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the
group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S"
portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the
multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream
originated by that source. The metadata may also contain
alternate delivery information such as the address of the unicast
form of the content to be used, for example, if the multicast
stream becomes unavailable.
o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information
specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in
typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo- order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay.
address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to
the source.
o If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a
AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will
the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo-
choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU. (Note address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to
that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is the source.
inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via
provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this
document.)
o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP o If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the
address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required). AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to
Variations may exist as well. the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing
choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU. (Note
that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is
inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via
provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this
document.)
o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three- o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP
way handshake with the AMT Relay. address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required).
Variations may exist as well.
o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three-
protocol messages). way handshake with the AMT Relay.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT
protocol messages).
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:
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:
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
delivery across AD's. delivery across AD's.
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
all supporting back-offices of the AD's as appropriate. This o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
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
delivery are as follows. 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 many
ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If, however, native
Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across
many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If, however, native
multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then: 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).
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.
Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer care
care access to their own systems. access to their own systems.
AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility to
to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by AD-
AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g. 2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g. to
to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways: 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
directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access
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
protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple
accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.
customer accounts, security accounts, etc.
4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1.
Multiple accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can
apply, e.g. customer accounts, security accounts, etc.
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
exchanged between them in support. Associated guidelines are as 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:
o Usage information logs at aggregate level. o Usage information logs at aggregate level.
o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
o Grouped or sequenced application access. o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support
potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of o Grouped or sequenced application access. performance/behavior/
aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets failure at an aggregate level to support potential Application
of software download. Provider-driven strategies. Examples of aggregate levels include
o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement grouped video clips, web pages, and sets of software download.
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 Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting.
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
multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided by AD-2 to
by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources (metrics may be
(metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated guidelines are as
guidelines are as follows: 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
multicast application source. 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 used
used to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example, to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example, AD-2 may
AD-2 may permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 multicast service
multicast service footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its own probes and relay
own probes and relay performance information back to AD-1. 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
may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA 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. 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
will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its own
own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools to
to monitor multicast service status in its own network. monitor multicast service status in its own network.
o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service
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
inform each other when multicast delivery problems are
detected.
o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example, o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service
for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of
experiencing difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to inform
by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If each other when multicast delivery problems are detected.
the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery
degrades, then AD-2 needs to report the issue to AD-1.
o When problem notification is received from a multicast o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example,
application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be experiencing
problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem by rerouting
the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If the fix is not
necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting successful and multicast service delivery degrades, then AD-2
information include the following: needs to report the issue to AD-1.
o Kind of problem(s). o When problem notification is received from a multicast application
source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the problem is within
its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If the cause is within
the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all necessary information to
AD-2. Examples of supporting information include the following:
o Starting point & duration of problem(s). o Kind of problem(s).
o Conditions in which problem(s) occur. o Starting point & duration of problem(s).
o IP address blocks of affected users. o Conditions in which problem(s) occur.
o ISPs of affected users. o IP address blocks of affected users.
o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop. o ISPs of affected users.
o Locations of affected EUs. o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop.
o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for o Locations of affected EUs.
multicast service delivery problems. Examples of various
factors for consideration include:
o Verification that the service configuration matches the o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for multicast
product features. service delivery problems. Examples of various factors for
consideration include:
o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer o Verification that the service configuration matches the product
problems and resource troubles into a single root service features.
problem.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer problems
and resource troubles into a single root service problem.
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).
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
problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to verify and
verify and validate the success of the fix. 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
compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-2
compensated by AD-2 based on the contract. based on the contract.
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines
There are multiple options for instituting reliability There are multiple options for instituting reliability architectures,
architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should most are at the application level. Both AD's should work those out
work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast with their contract/agreement and with the multicast application
application source providers. source providers.
Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by
provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means. provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means.
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics
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
in section 4.4. section 4.4.
It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected
according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However,
given that inter-domain multicast creates a significant
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 It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected according
each other if there are any issues noted by either one. to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However, given that
inter-domain multicast creates a significant interdependence of
proper networking functionality between providers there does exist a
need for providers to be able to signal/alert 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], [I-D.ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2] and can
easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast be 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
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
could be established depending on the severity of the be established depending on the severity of the identified
identified trouble. 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
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 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
securing the identified breach. 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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017
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.
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
proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end servers
servers querying the multicast application source provider's token 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
document. document.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
No considerations identified in this document No considerations identified in this document
8. Conclusions 8. Conclusions
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 4.2 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
Anycast IP address for AMT Relays. IP address for AMT Relays.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 9. Acknowledgments
9. References The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
suggestions, comments, and corrections:
9.1. Normative References Mikael Abrahamsson
[RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina, Hitoshi Asaeda
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000
[RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Dale Carder
Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002
[RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Tim Chown
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004
[RFC4760] T. Bates, et al, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC Leonard Giuliano
4760, January 2007 Jake Holland
[RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management Joel Jaeggli
Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery
Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604,
August 2006
[RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Albert Manfredi
Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements",
RFC 4609, August 2006
[RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450, Stig Venaas
February 2015
[RFC7761] B. Fenner, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Henrik Levkowetz
Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised), RFC 7761, March
2016
[BCP38] P. Ferguson, et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating 10. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing",
BCP: 38, May 2000
[BCP41] S. Floyd, "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, September Please see discussion on mailing list for changes before -111.
2000
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 -11: version in IESG review.
9.2. Informative References -12: XML'ified version of -11, committed solely to make rfcdiff
easier. XML versions hosted on https://www.github.com/toerless/
peering-bcp
[INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a 11. References
Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010,
December 2012
[MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D 11.1. Normative References
draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000
[Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
[draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace- Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
v2-16, October 2016, work in progress 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
10. Acknowledgments [RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
suggestions, comments, and corrections: "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
Mikael Abrahamsson [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.
Hitoshi Asaeda [RFC4609] Savola, P., Lehtonen, R., and D. Meyer, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast
Routing Security Issues and Enhancements", RFC 4609,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4609, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4609>.
Dale Carder [RFC7450] Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.
Tim Chown [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
Leonard Giuliano [BCP38] Ferguson, P., et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating
Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address
Spoofing", BCP: 38, May 2000.
Jake Holland [BCP41] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
September 2000.
Joel Jaeggli 11.2. Informative References
Albert Manfredi [INF_ATIS_10]
"CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a
Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard
A-0200010, December 2012.
Stig Venaas [Traceroute]
, <http://traceroute.org/#source%20code>.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2017 [I-D.ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2]
Asaeda, H., Meyer, K., and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version 2:
Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-
mtrace-v2-20 (work in progress), October 2017.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Percy S. Tarapore Percy S. Tarapore (editor)
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
Email: rs1983@att.com Email: rs1983@att.com
Greg Shepherd Greg Shepherd
Cisco Cisco
Phone:
Email: shep@cisco.com Email: shep@cisco.com
Toerless Eckert Toerless Eckert (editor)
Futurewei Technologies Inc. Futurewei Technologies Inc.
Phone:
Email: tte@cs.fau.de Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
SupportVectors SupportVectors
Phone:
Email: ramkri123@gmail.com Email: ramkri123@gmail.com
 End of changes. 274 change blocks. 
761 lines changed or deleted 737 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/