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/