draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-05.txt   draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-06.txt 
MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft Robert Sayko Internet Draft Robert Sayko
Intended status: BCP AT&T Intended status: BCP AT&T
Expires: August 3, 2014 Greg Shepherd Expires: January 4, 2015 Greg Shepherd
Toerless Eckert Toerless Eckert
Cisco Cisco
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
Brocade Brocade
March 3, 2014 July 4, 2014
Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-05.txt draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-06.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
This document examines the process of transporting applications via This document examines the process of transporting applications via
multicast across inter-domain peering points. The objective is to multicast across inter-domain peering points. The objective is to
describe the setup process for multicast-based delivery across describe the setup process for multicast-based delivery across
administrative domains and document supporting functionality to administrative domains and document supporting functionality to
enable this process. enable this process.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport.......3 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport.......4
3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast..........5 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast..........5
3.1. Native Multicast..........................................5 3.1. Native Multicast..........................................5
3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel.....................6 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 Multicast
Enabled........................................................8 Enabled........................................................8
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........................................................9 Enabled........................................................9
3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through
AD-2..........................................................11 AD-2..........................................................11
4. Supporting Functionality......................................13 4. Supporting Functionality......................................13
4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines14 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines14
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15
4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................15 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................15
4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....16 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....16
4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................16 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................16
4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines...19 4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines...19
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines19 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................19
4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines..........19 4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines.........20
4.6. Provisioning Guidelines..................................19 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................21
4.7. Client Models............................................19 4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines.............................21
4.8. Addressing Guidelines....................................19 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22
5. Security Considerations.......................................19 4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines..........22
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014 IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
6. IANA Considerations...........................................20 4.6. Provisioning Guidelines..................................22
7. Conclusions...................................................20 4.7. Client Models............................................23
8. References....................................................20 4.8. Addressing Guidelines....................................23
8.1. Normative References.....................................20 5. Security Considerations.......................................23
8.2. Informative References...................................20 6. IANA Considerations...........................................23
9. Acknowledgments...............................................20 7. Conclusions...................................................23
8. References....................................................23
8.1. Normative References.....................................23
8.2. Informative References...................................24
9. Acknowledgments...............................................24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Several types of applications (e.g., live video streaming, software Several types of applications (e.g., live video streaming, software
downloads) are well suited for delivery via multicast means. The use downloads) are well suited for delivery via multicast means. The use
of multicast for delivering such applications offers significant of multicast for delivering such applications offers significant
savings for utilization of resources in any given administrative savings for utilization of resources in any given administrative
domain. End user demand for such applications is growing. Often, domain. End user demand for such applications is growing. Often,
this requires transporting such applications across administrative this requires transporting such applications across administrative
domains via inter-domain peering points. domains via inter-domain peering points.
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
o Protocol Independent Multicast - Source Specific Multicast o Protocol Independent Multicast - Source Specific Multicast
(PIM-SSM) [RFC4607] (PIM-SSM) [RFC4607]
o Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) v3 [RFC4604] o Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) v3 [RFC4604]
o Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC4604] o Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC4604]
This document therefore serves the purpose of a "Gap Analysis" This document therefore serves the purpose of a "Gap Analysis"
exercise for this process. The rectification of any gaps identified exercise for this process. The rectification of any gaps identified
- whether they involve protocol extension development or otherwise - - whether they involve protocol extension development or otherwise -
is beyond the scope of this document and is for further study. is beyond the scope of this document and is for further study.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport
A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows: A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows:
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
peering point. peering point.
o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end
native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by
one of two possible tunnel types: one of two possible tunnel types:
o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784]
allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [IETF-ID-AMT]. o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [IETF-ID-AMT].
o The application stream originates at a source in Domain 1. o The application stream originates at a source in Domain 1.
o An End User associated with Domain 2 requests the application. o An End User associated with Domain 2 requests the application.
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
information that the application client can use to locate the information that the application client can use to locate the
source and join the stream. source and join the stream.
It should be noted that the second administrative domain - domain 2 It should be noted that the second administrative domain - domain 2
- may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 1 network - may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 1 network
operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network operated operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network operated
by a single customer. The peering point architecture and by a single customer. The peering point architecture and
requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the
Enterprise case. Enterprise case.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for
the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is
described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise
network possibility will be described in this section. A network possibility will be described in this section. A
comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be
exchanged between the two domains to support various functions exchanged between the two domains to support various functions
enabling the application transport is provided in section 4. enabling the application transport is provided in section 4.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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 three possible Use Cases for consideration. There are three possible Use Cases for consideration.
3.1. Native Multicast 3.1. Native Multicast
This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two
administrative domains and the peering point is also native administrative domains and the peering point is also native
multicast enabled - Figure 1. multicast enabled - Figure 1.
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+ | | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+
| | CS |------>| BR |-|---------|->| BR |-------------|-->| EU | | | AS |------>| BR |-|---------|->| BR |-------------|-->| EU |
| | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System) AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
CS = Content Multicast Source AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source
BR = Border Router BR = Border Router
I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (MBGP or BGMP) I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (MBGP or BGMP)
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:
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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 o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream
when compared to unicast transmissions. when compared to unicast transmissions.
From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with
native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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 o Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended
as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility. as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.
b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled o If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled
network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated
accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non- accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non-
rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then
it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support
rate-adaption. rate-adaption.
c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two o The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two
domains is typically determined by local policies associated domains is typically determined by local policies associated
with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider
and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies
for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from AD-2. for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from AD-2.
d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End o Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End
Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available
capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and
formats of the collected information will be determined by formats of the collected information will be determined by
directives from the source owner and the domain operators. directives from the source owner and the domain operators.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across
the GRE tunnel. the GRE tunnel.
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains although not o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains although not
as efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case. as efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case.
o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream
when compared to unicast transmissions. when compared to unicast transmissions.
skipping to change at page 7, line 41 skipping to change at page 7, line 50
o GRE must be in place prior to stream starting. o GRE must be in place prior to stream starting.
o GRE is often left pinned up o GRE 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. Case 3.1.
e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering o 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)
configuration in the source network is such that it only
advertises the routes to the content sources and not to the
entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized
delivery of content through the tunnel (e.g., if content is not
part of an agreed CDN partnership).
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014 IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
o It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server)
configuration in the source network is such that it only
advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the
entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized
delivery of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if
application - e.g., content - is not part of an agreed inter-
domain partnership).
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
Enabled Enabled
Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be
native multicast enabled here; however the peering point is not. The native multicast enabled here; however the peering point is not. The
peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. 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) \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+ | | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+
| | CS |------>| 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 P-CDN and S-CDN I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
I2 = S-CDN 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.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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 peering point. the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies. policies.
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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
bytes transmitted. bytes transmitted.
o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be
introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated
in the existing routing nodes. in the existing routing nodes.
o Currently undefined mechanisms to select the AR from the AG o Currently undefined mechanisms to select the AR from the AG
automatically. automatically.
skipping to change at page 10, line 13 skipping to change at page 10, line 13
Figure 3. Figure 3.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014 IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \ / \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | | +----+ | | | +------+ | | | +----+
| | CS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G| | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
CS = Content 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.
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.
skipping to change at page 12, line 13 skipping to change at page 12, line 13
This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows: This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014 IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \ / \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | |+--+ +--+ | | +----+ | |+--+ +--+ |
| | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+ | | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+
| | CS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G| | | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+
\ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ / \ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
(Note: Diff-marks for the figure have been removed to improve (Note: Diff-marks for the figure have been removed to improve
viewing) viewing)
CS = Content 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 AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway
skipping to change at page 19, line 13 skipping to change at page 19, line 13
to the EU. to the EU.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014 IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
Note: Further routing discussion on optimal method to find "best AMT Note: Further routing discussion on optimal method to find "best AMT
Relay/GW combination" and information exchange between AD's to be Relay/GW combination" and information exchange between AD's to be
provided. provided.
4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines 4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines
Back Office refers to the following:
o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery
of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs.
o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering,
provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.
4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines
Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be
provisioned as follows:
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
delivery across ADs.
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
all supporting back-offices of the Ads as appropriate. This
includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.
o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support
these.
Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain
delivery are as follows.
The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
triggered via the manifest file. Hence, this file must be provided
to the EU regarding multicast URL - and unicast fallback if
applicable. AD-2 must build manifest and provision capability to
provide the file to the EU.
Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available in across
many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native
multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then:
o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either
from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or
AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a
client download site (note: this could be an Application Source
site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source
would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is
provided (assuming multiple possible clients).
o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2
AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group
addresses for streams it is allowed to join.
o DNS across each AD, must be provisioned to enable a client GW to
locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and
shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's
multicast source.
Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are
stated as follows.
Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer
care access to their own systems.
AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility
to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by
AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g.
to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways:
o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that
operations and customer care continue using their own systems.
This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate
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
provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s
to support this option.
4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines
All interactions between pairs of Ads can be discovered and/or be
associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.
Supporting guidelines are as follows:
o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master
account.
o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
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
interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged
between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows.
AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples
of log types include the following:
o Usage information logs at aggregate level.
o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
o Grouped or sequenced application access
performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support
potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of
aggregate levels include 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
events, by agreement).
o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting.
o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for
shared troubleshooting.
o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared
troubleshooting.
The two ADs may supply additional security logs to each other as
agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following:
o Information related to general security-relevant activity which
may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as
types and counts of attacks detected, related source information,
related target information, etc.
o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with
additional detail potentially provided during security events, by
agreement)
4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines
Settlements between the ADs relate to (1) billing and reimbursement
aspects for delivery of applications, and (2) aggregation,
transport, and collection of data in preparation for the billing and
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
reimbursement aspects for delivery of applications for the
Application Provider. At a high level:
o AD-2 collects "usage" data for AD-1 related to application
delivery to End Users, and submits invoices to AD-1 based on this
usage data. The data may include information related to the type
of content delivered, total bandwidth utilized, storage utilized,
features supported, etc.
o AD-1 collects all available data from partner AD-2 and creates
aggregate reports pertaining to responsible Application Providers,
and submits subsequent reports to these Providers for
reimbursements.
o AD-1 may convey charging values or charging rules to the AD-2,
proactively or in response to a query, especially in cases where
these may change.
o AD-2 may convey prices/rates to AD-1, proactively or in response
to a query, especially in cases where these may change.
o Usage data may be collected per end user or on an aggregated
basis; the method of collection will depend on the application
delivered and/or the agreements with the source provider. In all
cases, usage volume is expected to be in terms of delivered packet
bits or bytes.
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines
4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines 4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines
4.6. Provisioning Guidelines 4.6. Provisioning Guidelines
In order to find right relay there is a need for a small/light In order to find right relay there is a need for a small/light
implementation of an AMT DNS in source network. implementation of an AMT DNS in source network.
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
4.7. Client Models 4.7. Client Models
4.8. Addressing Guidelines 4.8. Addressing Guidelines
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
(Include discussion on DRM, AAA, Network Security) (Include discussion on DRM, AAA, Network Security)
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
7. Conclusions 7. Conclusions
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina, [RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000
[IETF-ID-AMT] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", draft- [IETF-ID-AMT] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", draft-
ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-13, April 2012, Work in progress ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-13, April 2012, Work in progress
[RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management
Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery
Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604,
August 2006 August 2006
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
[RFC4607] H. Holbrook, et al, "Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4607, [RFC4607] H. Holbrook, et al, "Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4607,
August 2006 August 2006
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a [INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a
Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010, Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010,
December 2012 December 2012
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
53 lines changed or deleted 215 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/