draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-06.txt		draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-07.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: January 4, 2015 Greg Shepherd		Expires: April 27, 2015 Greg Shepherd
	Toerless Eckert		Toerless Eckert
	Cisco		Cisco
	Ram Krishnan		Ram Krishnan
	Brocade		Brocade
	July 4, 2014		October 27, 2014
	Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points		Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
	draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-06.txt		draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-07.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 January 4, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
	respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this		respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
	document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in		document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
	Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without		Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
	warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF		This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
	Contributions published or made publicly available before November		Contributions published or made publicly available before November
	10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this		10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
	material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow		material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
	modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.		modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
	Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling		Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
	the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified		the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
	outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may		outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
	not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format		not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
	it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other		it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
	skipping to change at page 2, line 52		skipping to change at page 2, line 50
	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
	4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................19		4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................19
	4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines.........20		4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines.........20
	4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................21		4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................21
	4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines.............................21		4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines.............................21
	4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22		4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22
	4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines..........22		4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...24
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	4.6. Provisioning Guidelines..................................22		5. Security Considerations.......................................25
	4.7. Client Models............................................23		6. IANA Considerations...........................................25
	4.8. Addressing Guidelines....................................23		7. Conclusions...................................................25
	5. Security Considerations.......................................23		8. References....................................................26
	6. IANA Considerations...........................................23		8.1. Normative References.....................................26
	7. Conclusions...................................................23		8.2. Informative References...................................26
	8. References....................................................23		9. Acknowledgments...............................................26
	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.
	The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:		The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:
	o Describe the process and establish guidelines for setting up		o Describe the process and establish guidelines for setting up
	multicast-based delivery of applications across inter-domain		multicast-based delivery of applications across inter-domain
	peering points, and		peering points, and
	o Catalog all required information exchange between the		o Catalog all required information exchange between the
	administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery.		administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery.
	While there are several multicast protocols available for use, this		While there are sSeveral multicast protocols are available for use,
	BCP will focus the discussion to those that are applicable and		this BCP will focus the discussion to those that are applicable and
	recommended for the peering requirements of today's service model,		recommended for the peering requirements of today's service model,
	including:		including:
	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 BCP is independent of the choice of multicast protocol; it
			focuses solely on the implications for the inter-domain peering
			points.
	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:
	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
	skipping to change at page 5, line 5		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.
	3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast		3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast
	skipping to change at page 6, line 5		skipping to change at page 6, line 5
	AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)		AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
	AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source		AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source
	BR = Border Router		BR = Border Router
	I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (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
	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
	skipping to change at page 7, line 5		skipping to change at page 7, line 5
	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.
	o 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
	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
	skipping to change at page 8, line 5		skipping to change at page 8, line 5
	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.
	o 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.
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	o It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server)		o It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server)
	configuration in the source network is such that it only		configuration in the source network is such that it only
	advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the		advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the
	entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized		entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized
	delivery of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if		delivery of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if
	application - e.g., content - is not part of an agreed inter-		application - e.g., content - is not part of an agreed inter-
	domain partnership).		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
	skipping to change at page 9, line 5		skipping to change at page 9, line 5
	AG = AMT Gateway		AG = AMT Gateway
	I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2		I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
	I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection		I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection
	Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2		Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
	Advantages of this configuration:		Advantages of this configuration:
	o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.		o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.
	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:
	skipping to change at page 10, line 5		skipping to change at page 10, line 5
	across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the		across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the
	(S, G) information from the EU.		(S, G) information from the EU.
	3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled		3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled
	In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not		In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not
	multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD-		multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD-
	2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in		2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in
	Figure 3.		Figure 3.
	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) \
	| +----+ | | |		| +----+ | | |
	| | | +------+ | | | +----+		| | | +------+ | | | +----+
	| | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|		| | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
	| | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+		| | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+
	\ +----+ / \ /		\ +----+ / \ /
	\ / \ /		\ / \ /
	skipping to change at page 11, line 5		skipping to change at page 11, line 5
	o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across		o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
	the peering point.		the peering point.
	o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing		o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
	policies.		policies.
	o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also		o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also
	able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU.		able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU.
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	Disadvantages of this configuration:		Disadvantages of this configuration:
	o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced		o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced
	into the transport path.		into the transport path.
	o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU		o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU
	Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-		Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-
	1.		1.
	Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:		Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
	skipping to change at page 12, line 5		skipping to change at page 12, line 5
	G) information to the Gateway for this purpose.		G) information to the Gateway for this purpose.
	e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for		e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for
	the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast		the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
	streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.		streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.
	3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2		3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2
	This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:		This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:
	IETF I-D 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| | +----+
	| | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|		| | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|
	| | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+		| | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+
	\ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ /		\ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ /
	\ / \ /		\ / \ /
	skipping to change at page 13, line 4		skipping to change at page 13, line 4
	o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of		o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of
	AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and		AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and
	an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering		an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering
	point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).		point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).
	o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT		o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT
	Relay in AD-1 to the AMT Gateway in the AMT node AGAR1 in AD-2.		Relay in AD-1 to the AMT Gateway in the AMT node AGAR1 in AD-2.
	o AMT tunnels linking AMT node AGAR1 at peering point in AD-2 to		o AMT tunnels linking AMT node AGAR1 at peering point in AD-2 to
	other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel		other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	I2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2		I2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2
	in Figure 4.		in Figure 4.
	o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in		o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in
	device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2:		device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2:
	e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node		e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node
	AGAR2.		AGAR2.
	The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the		The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the
	total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced		total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced
	skipping to change at page 14, line 5		skipping to change at page 14, line 5
	4. Supporting Functionality		4. Supporting Functionality
	Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point		Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point
	that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in		that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in
	this section. Critical information parameters that need to be		this section. Critical information parameters that need to be
	exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with		exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with
	guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for		guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for
	consideration are as follows.		consideration are as follows.
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines		4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines
	The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the		The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the
	interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The		interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The
	following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be		following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be
	agreed to between the two administrative domains to support		agreed to between the two administrative domains to support
	multicast delivery.		multicast delivery.
	o Number of Peering Points		o Number of Peering Points
	skipping to change at page 15, line 4		skipping to change at page 15, line 4
	security procedures will be followed by each AD to facilitate		security procedures will be followed by each AD to facilitate
	multicast delivery to registered and authenticated end users. Some		multicast delivery to registered and authenticated end users. Some
	security aspects for consideration are:		security aspects for consideration are:
	o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement		o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement
	if dedicated for multicast delivery.		if dedicated for multicast delivery.
	o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security		o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security
	breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for		breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for
	shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic		shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	over alternated peering points. It is also expected that		over alternated peering points. It is also expected that
	appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of		appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of
	securing the identified breach.		securing the identified breach.
	4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines		4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines
	The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that		The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that
	the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal"		the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal"
	source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically:		source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically:
	skipping to change at page 16, line 4		skipping to change at page 16, line 4
	coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their		coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their
	network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An		network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An
	example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across		example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across
	two administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the		two administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the
	interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled:		interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled:
	o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a		o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a
	subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This is usually done via		subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This is usually done via
	an appropriate file transfer - this file is typically known as		an appropriate file transfer - this file is typically known as
	the manifest file. It contains instructions directing the EU		the manifest file. It contains instructions directing the EU
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and		client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and
	also additional information for the application about the source		also additional information for the application about the source
	location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G"		location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G"
	data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the		data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the
	source of the multicast stream. The file may also contain		source of the multicast stream. The file may also contain
	alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast		alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast
	address of the stream.		address of the stream.
	o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast		o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
	stream [RFC2236].		stream [RFC2236].
	skipping to change at page 17, line 5		skipping to change at page 17, line 5
	more complex. It presents a dual layered problem because there are		more complex. It presents a dual layered problem because there are
	two criteria that should be simultaneously meet:		two criteria that should be simultaneously meet:
	o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has		o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has
	multicast connectivity to the content source and		multicast connectivity to the content source and
	o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.		o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.
	There are essentially two components to the AMT specification:		There are essentially two components to the AMT specification:
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast		o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast
	traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will		traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will
	receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and		receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and
	will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT		will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT
	Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast		Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast
	packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway.		packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway.
	In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and		In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and
	activity statistics collection. This results in moving the		activity statistics collection. This results in moving the
	replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on		replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on
	traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding		traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding
	skipping to change at page 18, line 4		skipping to change at page 18, line 4
	Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT		Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT
	Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the		Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the
	multicast topology of the source. An example of a basic delivery		multicast topology of the source. An example of a basic delivery
	via an AMT Multicast process for these two Use Cases is as follows:		via an AMT Multicast process for these two Use Cases is as follows:
	o The manifest file is obtained by the EU client application. This		o The manifest file is obtained by the EU client application. This
	file contains instructions directing the EU client to an ordered		file contains instructions directing the EU client to an ordered
	list of particular destinations to seek the requested stream and,		list of particular destinations to seek the requested stream and,
	for multicast, specifies the source location and the group (or		for multicast, specifies the source location and the group (or
	stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" portion provides		stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" portion provides
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the multicast stream		the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the multicast stream
	and the "G" identifies the particular stream originated by that		and the "G" identifies the particular stream originated by that
	source. The manifest file may also contain alternate delivery		source. The manifest file may also contain alternate delivery
	information such as the address of the unicast form of the content		information such as the address of the unicast form of the content
	to be used, for example, if the multicast stream becomes		to be used, for example, if the multicast stream becomes
	unavailable.		unavailable.
	o Using the information in the manifest file, and possibly		o Using the information in the manifest file, and possibly
	information provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is		information provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is
	initiated in order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT		initiated in order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT
	skipping to change at page 19, line 5		skipping to change at page 19, line 5
	protocol messages).		protocol messages).
	o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join		o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join
	the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed		the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed
	to that stream.		to that stream.
	o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel		o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel
	between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content		between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content
	to the EU.		to the EU.
	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:		Back Office refers to the following:
	o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery		o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery
	of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs.		of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs.
	skipping to change at page 19, line 28		skipping to change at page 19, line 26
	provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.		provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.
	4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines		4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines
	Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be		Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be
	provisioned as follows:		provisioned as follows:
	o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based		o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
	delivery across ADs.		delivery across ADs.
	o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between		o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
	all supporting back-offices of the Ads as appropriate. This		all supporting back-offices of the ADs as appropriate. This
	includes activating proper security treatment for these back-		includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
	office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.		office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.
	o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support		o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support
	these.		these.
	Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain		Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain
	delivery are as follows.		delivery are as follows.
	The ability to receive requested application via multicast is		The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
	triggered via the manifest file. Hence, this file must be provided		triggered via the manifest file. Hence, this file must be provided
	skipping to change at page 20, line 5		skipping to change at page 20, line 5
	provide the file to the EU.		provide the file to the EU.
	Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available in across		Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available in across
	many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native		many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native
	multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then:		multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then:
	o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either		o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either
	from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or		from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or
	AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).		AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).
	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		o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a
	client download site (note: this could be an Application Source		client download site (note: this could be an Application Source
	site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source		site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source
	would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is		would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is
	provided (assuming multiple possible clients).		provided (assuming multiple possible clients).
	o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2		o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2
	AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group		AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group
	addresses for streams it is allowed to join.		addresses for streams it is allowed to join.
	o DNS across each AD, must be provisioned to enable a client GW to		o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to
	locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and		locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and
	shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's		shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's
	multicast source.		multicast source.
	Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are		Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are
	stated as follows.		stated as follows.
	Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer		Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer
	care access to their own systems.		care access to their own systems.
	skipping to change at page 20, line 43		skipping to change at page 20, line 41
	This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate		This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate
	provisioning of necessary resources.		provisioning of necessary resources.
	o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access		o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access
	directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional		directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional
	provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary		provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
	access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s		access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s
	to support this option.		to support this option.
	4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines		4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines
	All interactions between pairs of Ads can be discovered and/or be		All interactions between pairs of ADs can be discovered and/or be
	associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.		associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.
	Supporting guidelines are as follows:		Supporting guidelines are as follows:
	o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master		o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master
	account.		account.
	o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally		o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
	protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple		protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.		accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.
	customer accounts, security accounts, etc.		customer accounts, security accounts, etc.
	4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines		4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines
	Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of		Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of
	interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged		interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged
	between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows.		between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows.
	AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples		AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples
	skipping to change at page 22, line 4		skipping to change at page 22, line 4
	related target information, etc.		related target information, etc.
	o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with		o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with
	additional detail potentially provided during security events, by		additional detail potentially provided during security events, by
	agreement)		agreement)
	4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines		4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines
	Settlements between the ADs relate to (1) billing and reimbursement		Settlements between the ADs relate to (1) billing and reimbursement
	aspects for delivery of applications, and (2) aggregation,		aspects for delivery of applications, and (2) aggregation,
	transport, and collection of data in preparation for the billing and		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		reimbursement aspects for delivery of applications for the
	Application Provider. At a high level:		Application Provider. At a high level:
	o AD-2 collects "usage" data for AD-1 related to application		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		delivery to End Users, and submits invoices to AD-1 based on this
	usage data. The data may include information related to the type		usage data. The data may include information related to the type
	of content delivered, total bandwidth utilized, storage utilized,		of content delivered, total bandwidth utilized, storage utilized,
	features supported, etc.		features supported, etc.
	o AD-1 collects all available data from partner AD-2 and creates		o AD-1 collects all available data from partner AD-2 and creates
	aggregate reports pertaining to responsible Application Providers,		aggregate reports pertaining to responsible Application Providers,
	skipping to change at page 22, line 32		skipping to change at page 22, line 29
	o AD-2 may convey prices/rates to AD-1, proactively or in response		o AD-2 may convey prices/rates to AD-1, proactively or in response
	to a query, especially in cases where these may change.		to a query, especially in cases where these may change.
	o Usage data may be collected per end user or on an aggregated		o Usage data may be collected per end user or on an aggregated
	basis; the method of collection will depend on the application		basis; the method of collection will depend on the application
	delivered and/or the agreements with the source provider. In all		delivered and/or the agreements with the source provider. In all
	cases, usage volume is expected to be in terms of delivered packet		cases, usage volume is expected to be in terms of delivered packet
	bits or bytes.		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		Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to
			multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided
			by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources
			(metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated
			guidelines are as follows:
	4.6. Provisioning Guidelines		o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service
			performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides
			relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to
			create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the
			multicast application source.
	In order to find right relay there is a need for a small/light		o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be
	implementation of an AMT DNS in source network.		used to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example,
			AD-2 may permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2
			multicast service footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its
			own probes and relay performance information back to AD-1.
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014		o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1
			may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA
			agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2
			if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network.
	4.7. Client Models		Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole)
			provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source
			provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service
			problems occur. EU's direct their complaints to the source provider;
			in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The
			responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1
			will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its
			own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools
			to monitor multicast service status in its own network.
	4.8. Addressing Guidelines		o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service
			monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of
			monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to
			inform each other when multicast delivery problems are
			detected.
			o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example,
			for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be
			experiencing difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem
			by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If
			the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery
			degrades, then AD-2 needs to report the issue to AD-1.
			o When problem notification is received from a multicast
			application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the
			problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If
			the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all
			necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting
			information include the following:
			o Kind of problem(s)
			o Starting point & duration of problem(s).
			o Conditions in which problem(s) occur.
			o IP address blocks of affected users.
			o ISPs of affected users.
			o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop.
			o Locations of affected EUs.
			o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for
			multicast service delivery problems. Examples of various
			factors for consideration include:
			o Verification that the service configuration matches the
			product features.
			o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer
			problems and resource troubles into a single root service
			problem.
			o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving
			consideration to problem impact, service level agreement,
			etc.
			o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a
			series of tests over a period of time.
			o Analysis of test results.
			o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data.
			o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer
			(CP).
			o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the
			problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to
			verify and validate the success of the fix.
			o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the
			multicast application source provider may have to be
			compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be
			compensated by AD-2 based on the contract.
			4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines
			There are multiple options for instituting reliability
			architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should
			work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast
			application source providers.
			Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by
			provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	(Include discussion on DRM, AAA, Network Security)		DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication
			should be the responsibility of the multicast application source
			provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate
			agreements with the source provider.
			Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication
			and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with
			normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security
			and network security
			AD-1 and AD-2 should have mechanisms in place to ensure proper
			accounting for the volume of bytes delivered through the peering
			point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs.
			If there are problems related to failure of token authentication
			when end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating
			proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end
			servers querying the multicast application source provider's token
			authentication server are communicating properly) should be
			considered. Details will have to be worked out during implementation
			(e.g., test tokens or trace token exchange process).
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	7. Conclusions		7. Conclusions
			This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case
			scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across
			peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of
			guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases.
			For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is
			recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the
			various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in
			AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as
			appropriate. Section 4.3 provides an overview of one method that
			finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an
			Anycast IP address for AMT Relays.
	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
	IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points February 2014
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Percy S. Tarapore		Percy S. Tarapore
	AT&T		AT&T
	Phone: 1-732-420-4172		Phone: 1-732-420-4172
	Email: tarapore@att.com		Email: tarapore@att.com
	Robert Sayko		Robert Sayko
	AT&T		AT&T
	Phone: 1-732-420-3292		Phone: 1-732-420-3292
End of changes. 41 change blocks.
	81 lines changed or deleted		160 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/