Hiroaki Satou, NTT
   Internet Draft                                     Hiroshi Ohta, NTT
   Expires: October 6, December 25, 2006                    Tsunemasa Hayashi, NTT
                                           Haixiang He, Nortel Networks

                                                          April 4,

                                                          June 23, 2006

                      AAA Framework for Multicasting

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, December 25, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006)

   This memo provides a generalized framework for solution standards to
   meet the requirements presented in draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-
   04.txt, "Requirements for Accounting, Authentication and
   Authorization in Well Managed IP Multicasting Services". In this
   framework a user sends a request for multicast data to a network
   service provider.  The network service provider selects the
   appropriate content provider to send the user's request.  The request
   is sent by the network service provider to the content provider
   transparently in a way so that the network service provider and
   content provider do not need to know the corresponding user id for
   the same user in the other provider's domain.  The content provider
   then responds with an indication of "success" or "failure" to the
   network provider and in the case of "success", the network provider
   may delivery the requested data to the user.  The network service may
   base its decision to deliver such data to the user based on its
   bandwidth management policy.  The framework is designed to be
   flexible and extendible, so it will be possible to implement
   partially enabled versions as well as fully enabled versions of the
   model.  Also an additional entity may provide transit of requests
   between network service providers and content providers, either
   through relaying or tunneling.

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Background

   IP multicasting is designed to serve cases where a single source of
   data content is to be concurrently streamed to multiple recipients.
   In these types of cases, multicasting provides resource efficiencies
   (both for the overall network and the content server) relative to
   unicasting.  These efficiencies are possible because of the avoidance
   of unnecessary duplication of streams, video/audio processing, etc.
   Multicasting also provides resource efficiencies relative to IP
   broadcasting in that content data is only delivered to end hosts
   which request it.

   There are many real-life situations where IP multicasting is selected
   as the technology used for concurrent content delivery of identical
   content data to multiple end-hosts.   "Requirements for Accounting,
   Authentication and Authorization in Well Managed IP Multicasting
   Services", (draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt, hereafter MACCNT-REQ-draft) MACCNT-
   REQ-draft) describes the requirements in CDN services using IP
   multicast[1]. "Issues Related to Receiver Access Control in the
   Current Multicast Protocols" (draft-ietf-mboned-rac-
   issues-02.txt, (draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-03.txt,
   hereafter RAC-ISSUES-draft) discusses the requirements and existing
   support for commercial, large-scale large-scale, multi-entity content delivery[2]. delivery services[2].
   The requirements are derived from:
        - need for user tracking and billing capabilities
        - need for network access control and/or content access control
   to satisfy the requirements of the CP
        - methods for sharing information between the network service
   provider and content provider to make it possible to fulfill the
   above two requirements.

   Detailed requirements are presented in MACCNT-REQ-draft.   These
   requirements include mechanisms for recording end-user requests and
   provider responses for content-delivery, sharing user information
   (possibly anonymously depending on the trust model) between content
   provider and network service provider, and protecting resources
   through the prevention of network and content access by unauthorized
   users, as well as other AAA related requirements.

   The purpose of this memo is to provide a generalized framework for
   solution standards to meet these requirements. This framework is to
   provide a basis for defining protocols, but definition of the actual
   protocols is outside of the scope of this memo.

2. Definitions and Abbreviations

2.1 Definitions

   For the purposes of this memo the following definitions apply:

   Accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior, when she/he
   starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel she/he receives,

   Authentication: action for identifying a user as a genuine one.

   Authorization: action for giving permission to access the content or
   network to a user.

   Receiver: an end-host or end-client which receives content.  A
   receiver may be distinguishable by a network ID such as MAC address
   or IP address.

   User: a human with a user account.  A user may possibly use multiple
   reception devices.  Multiple users may use the same reception device.

   Note: The definition of a receiver (device) and a user (human) should
   not be confused.

2.2 Abbreviations

   For the purposes of this draft the following abbreviations apply:

   ACL: Access Control List

   CDN: Content Delivery Network

   CDS: Content Delivery Services

   CP: Content Provider

   NSP: Network Service Provider

   TP: Transit Provider

3. Issues in multicasting related to commercial Framework and large-scale

   This section lists issues related to receiver access control in
   current multicasting protocols which are especially important to
   commercial, large-scale multicasting.  More details concerning the
   requirements related to these issues are provided in MACCNT-REQ-
   draft. References to that memo are provided as applicable below. Roles of Entities

3.1 Framework for multicast AAA allowing bandwidth Management

   A general high-level framework can be represented as follows.

            |    user                      |
            |                              |
                | Access       ^ Response
                | Request      | & Multicast Data
                V              |
            |    NSP                       |
            |                              |
                | Access         ^ Response
                | Request        | (Success)
                v                |
            |    CP                        |
            |                              |

   For the sake of simplicity, the above diagram portrays a case where
   there is a single NSP entity and a single CP entity.  Under the
   framework it is possible for there to be multiple CPs connected to
   the same NSP. It is also possible for the same CP to be connected to
   multiple NSP networks (e.g. network selection).  In other words the
   relationship of NSP:CP can be described as  1:1, 1:N or M:N.
   Furthermore it is possible that the NSP and CP could be the same

   Description of Roles:

   The user selects a CP and a NSP when the user requests content. The
   NSP may be automatically selected by a user terminal: e.g. a fixed
   line NSP for STB or a mobile NSP for mobile phone.

   The CP is responsible for Authentication and Authorization of users'
   access to content that the CP manages. The CP hopes to collect
   accounting information related to the access of their content. The CP
   may choose to authenticate and authorize NSPs which are eligible to
   provide users access to its contents.  When the CP cannot or decides
   not to provide content to be multicast to users, the CP is
   responsible for notifying the NSP of the reason.

   The NSP is responsible for managing its network resources.  The NSP
   may perform admission control to protect bandwidth resource and needs
   authorized information regarding user access for bandwidth
   It is also responsible for confirming (authentication by proxy) with
   the CP whether the user is eligible to receive content. When the NSP
   cannot or decides not to multicast to users, the NSP is responsible
   for notifying the users of the reason.
   In addition to the three basic entities of user, NSP and CP, this AAA
   framework for multicasting supports transit provision which transfers
   multicast streams from the CP to the NSP.

3.2 Multiple User IDs

   Users may be assigned separate user IDs for each subscription for
   various NSPs and CPs.  When the user wants to access content or
   otherwise use the network, the user registers the corresponding user
   ID with a request for content, etc: web authentication is one
   possible method.

   Terminal portability can be realized if the NSP authenticates a user
   using a user ID. This allows the user to access the content from
   various network access points.

   Each CP may identify users by the user IDs that it has issued to them.

   The NSP and CP do not need to know the corresponding user id for the
   same user in the other provider's domain, and it is not necessary
   that there is a one to one relationship.  It is quite possible for
   one person to hold multiple user ids for the same provider.

3.3 Accounting

   The NSP should not manage multicast states on a subnet basis, but on
   a user basis because the NSP needs to notify start and stop times for
   accounting purposes. This means that the NSP sends an indication for
   Join and Leave on a user basis.

   The NSP should log both user and host information for each join and
   leave, indicating the corresponding multicast source for each action.
   It is important that such log use a standard format so that it can be
   shared with the CP.  Intermittent logs between the join and leave
   also could serve useful in billing discrepancies, and disconnects
   without leaves.  Ideally a solution would also provide standard ways
   for the NSP to share logged information with the CP.  When shared it
   is important that the CP be able to match the user to the user within
   its domain.

3.4 Access Control and CP selection by NSP

   When a NSP receives an access request from a user, it is necessary
   for the NSP to determine to which CP the request is directed. It is
   necessary for the NSP to ensure that it is not spoofed by an
   inappropriate CP.


3.5 Network Resource Management by NSP

   After authorizing a user request, the NSP may conduct admission
   control based on its bandwidth management policy. For example, if the
   NSP manages the shared bandwidth of access lines, the NSP might
   calculate available bandwidth and necessary bandwidth, and based on
   these calculations determine to accept or reject a user request.


3.6 Access Control and Distinguishing of Users by CP

   The user ID and authentication information are forwarded
   transparently by the NSP so that the CP can distinguish the user, as
   well as authenticate and authorize the request.

3.6 Multicast Session Management for Accounting


3.7 Caching of AAA results

   An NSP should not manage multicast states on be able to cache AAA results based an understanding
   between the NSP and a subnet basis, but on CP.  The AAA cache would store information
   about permissions of a specific user basis because to receive multicast data from
   specified channel(s) up to specified expiration date(s) and time(s).
   If such caching is implemented, a method must exist for the CP to
   communicate this permission information to the NSP.  The NSP needs refers
   to notify start the AAA cache and stop times
   for accounting purposes. This means if the cache indicates that the user has
   permission to receive multicast data from a specific channel at that
   time, the NSP sends an indication may forward the data without querying the CP.

   It should be possible for a CP to send a directive to the NSP to
   refresh or change permissions for Join and Leave on a user basis. for specific channel(s).

   It is necessary for the NSP to requery the CP for authorization
   should a user be receiving content when the permission expires.

   It would be desirable to have a mechanism by which CPs could
   proactively push permission information to the cache even when not
   specifically queried by the NSP.

4. Network Connection Model and Functional Components

   Section 3.1 introduces the high-level AAA framework for multicasting.
   This section provides more detail on the network connection model and
   constituent functional components.

4.1 Basic Connection Model
                  |     user    |
                  |             |
                          ^ Access & Resource
                          | Request
                  |     NSP     |
                  |             |
                          ^ Access
                          | Request
                  |     CP      |
                  |             |

   First a user desiring authorization sends an Access request to an NSP
   which then forwards it on to the appropriate CP for Authentication
   and Authorization. The CP responds with either "success" of or
   "failure".  If "success", the NSP may forward a success response
   and stream multicast data to the user.

   In this model the user selects the NSP to which to send its content
   request.  Based on this request the NSP selects an appropriate CP to
   which it forwards the request. The CP responds to the NSP's request:
   it may not respond to another NSP in regards to the request.

   In this model, as described in section 3.1, the relationship between
   NSP and CP can be 1:1, 1:N or M:N.  Users may connect to multiple
   networks, and networks have multiple users.

4.2 Transit Provision

   The diagram below shows that a Transit Provider(hereafter, TP)  may
   relay requests between NSPs and CPs.

                  |     user    |
                  |             |
                          ^ Access & Resource
                          | Request
                  |     NSP     |
                  |             |
                          ^ Access & Resource
                          | Request
                  |     TP      |
                  |             |
                          ^ Access
                          | Request
                  |     CP      |
                  |             |

   For the sake of simplification the above diagram shows a 1-1
   relationship between an NSP and a TP.  However it is also possible
   for a single NSP to connect to multiple TPs, and a single TP to
   multiple NSPs.

   A single TP may connect to one or more CPs. Similarly just as a
   single CP may connect to multiple NSPs (as described in the general
   high-level framework, section 3.1), a single CP may connect to one or
   more TPs.

   A solution will include a mechanism through which the NSPs know which
   TP(s) are to be used to communicate with which CP(s), and CPs know
   which TP(s) to use for which NSP(s).  When a TP receives an access or
   resource request from an NSP or CP, it must relay the request to the
   correct CP or NSP, respectively.  Minimally, this means that it must
   reconstruct the request with translated address information.  In this
   model therefore a TP must understand the format and meaning of the

   There may be multiple TPs between a NSP and CP so that a TP is
   actually receiving from and/or sending requests to another TP and not
   directly from/to a NSP or CP.

4.3 Transit with Tunnels

   In addition to the above model of request relaying, a TP may
   communicate requests through tunneling based on the contract between
   the TP and the NSP and/or between the TP and the CP.  So in this case
   the TP will not directly need to process the contents of the access
   and resource request (such as, header information), but instead pass
   the request directly to the correct NSP or CP, using a separate
   protocol to wrap the original requests.

   Below is a diagram, representing how a TP can provider tunneling
   between NSP(s) and CP(s).

                  |     user        |
                  |                 |
                          ^ Access & Resource
                          | Request
                  |       NSP        |
                  |                  |
                  | |:|   TP         |
                  | |:|              |
                    |:| Tunnel
                  |       CP         |
                  |                  |

   In this model too, the relationship between NSP and TP and between
   transit provider and CP can be 1:1, 1:N or M:N.

4.4 Constituent Logical Functional Components of the fully enabled AAA

   Section 3.1 introduces the high-level AAA framework for multicasting.
   Below is a diagram of a fully enabled multicasting network with AAA,
   including the logical components within the various entities.

            |            user               |
            |                               |
                          | Access & resource request
            |            NSP                |
            |                               |
            |+--------------+    +---------+|
            ||NR Management |<-->|AAA Proxy||    (NR= network resource)
            |+--------------+ RR +---------+|    (RR= resource request)
                          | Access request
            |             CP               |
            |                              |
            |         +---------+          |
            |         |   AAA   |          |
            |         +---------+          |

   In the fully enabled model the NSP provides proxying of
   authentication and authorization between the NSP and CP, as well as
   user-based accounting.  The AAA proxy server of the NSP communicates
   with the CP's AAA server.  Although not show in the above diagram for
   the sake of simplicity, in addition to direct proxying between a NSP
   and CP, this proxying may be done through a TP.  This means that the
   transit provider too is able to support AAA proxying.

   In the fully enabled model the NSP also includes a component that
   provides network resource management (e.g. QoS management), as
   described in section 3.4, "Network Resource Management by NSP".  When
   a transit provider is used it may also provide Network Resource
   management of its own resources.

4.5 Modularity of the framework
   In the interest of flexibility, this framework is modular so that it
   is possible that partially enabled versions of the models are
   supported.  A AAA-enabled version provides AAA functionality without
   Network Resource management.  A Network-Resource-Management-enabled
   (QoS-enabled) version provides Network Resource management without
   AAA functionality.  Similarly, the possibility of one or more layers
   of transit provision between an NSP and CP is in the interest of
   modularity and extendibility.

5. IANA considerations

   This memo does not raise any IANA consideration issues.

6. Security considerations

   Refer to section 3.3.  Also the user information related to
   authentication with the CP should be protected in some way.
   Otherwise, this memo does not raise any new security issues which are
   not already existing in the original protocols.  Enhancement of
   multicast access control capabilities may enhance security

7. Conclusion

   This memo provides a generalized framework for solution standards to
   meet the requirements presented in MACCNT-REQ-draft.  Further work
   should be done to break down the content provider and network service
   provider entities into their functional objects such as edge devices,
   AAA servers, etc.

Normative References

   [1] Hayashi, et. al., "Accounting, Authentication and Authorization
       Issues in Well Managed IP Multicasting Services", draft-ietf-
       mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt, February 2006, Work in Progress.
   [2] Hayashi, et. al., "Issues Related to Receiver Access Control in
       the Current Multicast Protocols", draft-ietf-mboned-rac-issues-
       02.txt, March
       03.txt, April 2006, Work in Progress.

Authors' Addresses

           Hiroaki Satou
           NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
           3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan
           Phone : +81 422 59 4683
           Email : satou.hiroaki@lab.ntt.co.jp

           Hiroshi Ohta
           NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
           3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan
           Phone : +81 422 59 3617
           Email: ohta.hiroshi@lab.ntt.co.jp

           Tsunemasa Hayashi
           NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
           1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa, 239-0847 Japan
           Phone: +81 46 859 8790
           Email: hayashi.tsunemasa@lab.ntt.co.jp tsunemasa@gmail.com

           Haixiang He
           600 Technology Park Drive
           Billerica, MA 01801, USA
           Phone: +1 978 288 7482
           Email: haixiang@nortel.com


   Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the mboned working
   group's mailing list at mboned@lists.uoregon.edu_and/or the authors.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-


   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, December 25, 2006.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.