[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 8313

MBONED Working Group                                    P. Tarapore, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Sayko
Intended status: Best Current Practice                              AT&T
Expires: April 30, 2018                                      G. Shepherd
                                                                   Cisco
                                                          T. Eckert, Ed.
                                                  Futurewei Technologies
                                                             R. Krishnan
                                                          SupportVectors
                                                        October 27, 2017


          Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
              draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-12

Abstract

   This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
   across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
   scenarios.  The objective is to describe the setup process for
   multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
   scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
   process.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport  . .   5
   3.  Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast . . . .   6
     3.1.  Native Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains
           Multicast Enabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast
           Enabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through
           AD-2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Functional Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines  13
     4.2.  Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines  . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.2.1.  Native Multicast Routing Aspects  . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.2.2.  GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point . . . .  15
       4.2.3.  Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels  . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.3.  Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging
           Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.3.1.  Provisioning Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.3.2.  Application Accounting Guidelines . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.3.3.  Log Management Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.4.  Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring
           Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     4.5.  Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines  .  23
   5.  Troubleshooting and Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

1.  Introduction

   Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live video
   streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery via
   multicast means.  The use of multicast for delivering such content/
   data offers significant savings of utilization of resources in any
   given administrative domain.  End user demand for such content/data
   is growing.  Often, this requires transporting the content/data
   across administrative domains via inter-domain peering points.

   The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:

   o  Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for
      setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data
      across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases.

   o  Catalog all required information exchange between the
      administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery.  This
      enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support
      inter-domain peering with multicast.

   The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows:

   o  For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point" refers
      to an interface between two networks/administrative domains over
      which traffic is exchanged between them.  A Network-Network
      Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering point.

   o  Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native multicast.
      A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2.

   o  It is understood that several protocols are available for this
      purpose including PIM-SM and Protocol Independent Multicast -
      Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Internet Group
      Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Multicast Listener
      Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].





Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   o  As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the multicast
      stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known.  Under this
      condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the receiver's
      upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to the source
      without the need of invoking an intermediate Rendezvous Point
      (RP).  Use of SSM also presents an improved threat mitigation
      profile against attack, as described in [RFC4609].  Hence, in the
      case of inter-domain peering, it is recommended to use only SSM
      protocols; the setup of inter- domain peering for ASM (Any-Source
      Multicast) is not in scope for this document.

   o  AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols.  The use
      of different protocols is beyond the scope of this document.

   o  An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the
      peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not multicast
      enabled.  It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be available to a
      client for multicast delivery.  The selection of an optimal AMT
      relay by a client is out of scope for this document.  Note that
      AMT use is necessary only when native multicast is unavailable in
      the peering point (Use Case 3.3) or in the downstream
      administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and 3.5).

   o  The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the
      application level and is not considered to be a networking issue.
      The settlements process for end user billing and/or inter-provider
      billing is out of scope for this document.

   o  Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only
      considered within the context of a cooperative process between the
      two domains.

   Thus, the primary purpose of this document is to describe a scenario
   where two AD's interconnect via a a peering point with each other.
   Security and operational aspects for exchanging traffic on a public
   Internet Exchange Point (IXP) with a large shared broadcast domain
   between many operators, is not in scope for this document.

   It may be possible to have a configuration whereby a transit domain
   (AD-3) interconnects AD-1 and AD-2.  Such a configuration adds
   complexity and may require manual provisioning if, for example, AD-3
   is not multicast enabled.  This configuration is out of cope for this
   document; it is for further study.

   This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering
   process can be improved.  Development of new methods for improvement
   is beyond the scope of this document.




Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


2.  Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport

   A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows:

   o  Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
      peering point.

   o  The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end native
      multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by one of two
      possible tunnel types:

      o  A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] allowing
         multicast tunneling across the peering point, or

      o  An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450].

   o  A service provider controls one or more application sources in
      AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more (S,G)s.
      It is assumed that the service being provided is suitable for
      delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming of popular
      events, software downloads to many devices, etc.), and that the
      packet streams will be part of a suitable multicast transport
      protocol.

   o  An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which runs
      an application client compatible with the service provider's
      application source.

   o  The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to
      receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU.  The
      mechanisms by which the application client learns the appropriate
      (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the application, and are
      out of scope for this document.

   The assumption here is that AD-1 has ultimate responsibility for
   delivering the multicast based service on behalf of the content
   source(s).  All relevant interactions between the two domains
   described in this document are based on this assumption.

   Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 1
   network operator domain).  Alternately, domain 2 could also be an
   Enterprise network domain operated by a single customer.  The peering
   point architecture and requirements may have some unique aspects
   associated with the Enterprise case.

   The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for the
   multicast distribution along with associated requirements is
   described in section 3.  Unique aspects related to the Enterprise



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   network possibility will be described in this section.  Section 4
   contains a comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to
   be exchanged between the two domains in order to support functions to
   enable the application transport.

3.  Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast

   The transport of applications using multicast requires that the
   inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process.
   There are five Use Cases for consideration in this document.

3.1.  Native Multicast

   This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two
   administrative domains and the peering point is also native multicast
   enabled - Figure 1.

      -------------------               -------------------
     /       AD-1        \             /        AD-2       \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           / (Multicast Enabled) \
   /                       \         /                       \
   | +----+                |         |                       |
   | |    |       +------+ |         |  +------+             |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  BR  |-|---------|->|  BR  |-------------|-->| EU |
   | |    |       +------+ |   I1    |  +------+             |I2 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \                       /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------

   AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
   AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source
   BR = Border Router
   I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP)
   I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection

     Figure 1: - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast

   Advantages of this configuration are:

   o  Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains.

   o  Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when
      compared to an AMT enabled peering point.

   From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with
   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



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   End Users as well as the transmitted bytes delivered to them.  This
   information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and
   operational logs.  It is assumed that such data will be collected by
   the application layer.  The application layer mechanisms for
   generating this information need to be robust enough such that all
   pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator
   are satisfactorily met.  The specifics of these methods are beyond
   the scope of this document.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   a.  Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended 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
       network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly
       by the two domains to permit the transit of non- rate adaptive
       multicast traffic.  If this is not the case, then it is
       recommended that the multicast traffic should support rate-
       adaption.

   c.  The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two
       domains is typically determined by local policies associated 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 for
       traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from, AD-2.
       Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers
       specified content to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted
       by contract.

   d.  Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End Users
       in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in
       the application layer.  The precise nature and formats of the
       collected information will be determined by directives from the
       source owner and the domain operators.

   e.  The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should, at a minimum, follow
       guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems
       [BCP38].  Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control-
       plane and data-plane are described in section 6.

3.2.  Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel

   The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case.
   There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the
   peering point.  In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and
   AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing
   Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   protocols across the interface.  The routing configuration is
   basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP
   multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across
   the GRE tunnel.

   Advantages of this configuration:

   o  Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains, although not as
      efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case.

   o  Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when
      compared to an AMT enabled peering point.

   o  Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD- 1
      and/or AD-2 (the two Border Routers in Figure 1 do not need to be
      the two "unicast" domain border routers; instead they can be
      anywhere in AD-1 and AD-2).

   o  GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
      implement.

   Disadvantages of this configuration:

   o  Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the
      number of end users or the number bytes transmitted.

   o  GRE tunnel requires manual configuration.

   o  The GRE must be established prior to stream starting.

   o  The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the
   following:

   Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1.  Two additional guidelines are as follows:

   e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering
      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 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).




Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


3.3.  Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast Enabled

   Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be native
   multicast enabled here; however, the peering point is not.

   The peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel.  The
   basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2.

      -------------------               -------------------
     /       AD-1        \             /       AD-2        \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           / (Multicast Enabled) \
   /                       \         /                       \
   | +----+                |         |                       |
   | |    |       +------+ |         |  +------+             |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  AR  |-|---------|->|  AG  |-------------|-->| EU |
   | |    |       +------+ |   I1    |  +------+             |I2 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \                       /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------

   AR = AMT Relay
   AG = AMT Gateway
   I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
   I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection

           Figure 2: - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2

   Advantages of this configuration:

   o  Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.

   o  AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
      implement.  Attractive properties of AMT include the following:

      o  Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across the
         peering point.

      o  Ability to serve clients and servers with differing policies.

   Disadvantages of this configuration:

   o  Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router
      technology cannot count the number of end users or the number of
      bytes transmitted to all end users.






Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   o  Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be introduced
      into the path if these services are not incorporated in the
      existing routing nodes.

   o  Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically select
      the optimal AR.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1.  In addition,

   e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be configured
      at the peering points to support multicast delivery between
      domains.  AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically across the
      peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the (S, G)
      information from the EU.

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
   multicast enabled.  Hence, the interconnection between AD-2 and the
   End User is also not multicast enabled.  This Use Case is depicted in
   Figure 3.

      -------------------               -------------------
     /        AD-1       \             /        AD-2       \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           /   (Non-Multicast    \
   /                       \         /       Enabled)        \
   | +----+                |         |                       |
   | |    |       +------+ |         |                       |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  AR  |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
   | |    |       +------+ |         |                       |I2 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \                       /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------

   AS = Application Multicast Source
   AR = AMT Relay
   EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
   I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast
      Enabled AD-2.

      Figure 3: - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway

   This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the
   application through AD-2.  The total number of AMT tunnels would be



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application.
   The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT
   tunnels between the two domains.  Each AMT tunnel can provide the
   data usage associated with each End User.

   Advantages of this configuration:

   o  Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.

   o  AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
      implement.  Attractive properties of AMT include the following:

      o  Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across the
         peering point.

      o  Ability to serve clients and servers with differing policies.

   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.

   Disadvantages of this configuration:

   o  Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced
      into the transport path.

   o  Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU
      Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-1.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1.

   d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that
      the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the correct
      AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points.  The application
      client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S, G)
      information to the Gateway for this purpose.

   e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for the
      purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
      streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.

3.5.  AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2

   This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:





Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


      -------------------               -------------------
     /        AD-1       \             /        AD-2       \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           /   (Non-Multicast    \
   /                       \         /       Enabled)        \
   | +----+                |         |+--+              +--+ |
   | |    |       +------+ |         ||AG|              |AG| |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  AR  |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|
   | |    |       +------+ |   I1    ||1 |      I2      |2 | |I3 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \+--+              +--+ /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------

   AS = Application Source
   AR = AMT Relay in AD-1
   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
   AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge
   I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2
   EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
   I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2

          Figure 4: - AMT Tunnel Connecting AMT Relay and Relays

   Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire
   network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1
   through the peering point.  Depending on the number of End Users,
   there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels
   - and unicast streams - through the peering point.  This situation
   can be alleviated as follows:

   o  Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of
      AD-2.  An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and an
      AMT Relay.  One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point
      (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).

   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.

   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 I2
      linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in
      Figure 4.

   o  AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in
      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
      AGAR2.



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the total
   number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced, thus
   freeing up bandwidth.  Additionally, there will be a single unicast
   stream across the peering point instead of possibly, an unacceptably
   large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4.  However, this implies
   that several AMT tunnels will need to be dynamically configured by
   the various AMT Gateways based solely on the (S,G) information
   received from the application client at the EU device.  A suitable
   mechanism for such dynamic configurations is therefore critical.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1.

   d. 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.  The application client in the EU device is
      expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this
      purpose.

   e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for the
      purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
      streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.

4.  Functional Guidelines

   Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point
   that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in
   this section.  Critical information parameters that need to be
   exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated, along with
   guidelines as appropriate.  Specific interface functions for
   consideration are as follows.

4.1.  Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines

   The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the
   interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains.  The
   following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be
   agreed to between the two administrative domains to support multicast
   delivery.

   o  Number of Peering Points.

   o  Peering Point Addresses and Locations.





Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   o  Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared with
      other services.

   o  Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or via
      another ISP.

   o  Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will be
      used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at these
      points.  Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4760] and MBGP
      [RFC4760].

   o  Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then there
      needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth reserved for
      multicast delivery.  When determining the appropriate bandwidth
      allocation, parties should consider use of a multicast protocol
      suitable for live video streaming that is consistent with
      Congestion Control Principles [BCP41].

   o  QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be
      specified in an SLA.

   o  AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for
      provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to support
      multicast delivery.

4.2.  Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines

   The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that
   the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal"
   source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically:

   o  Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes any
      unicast portion of the delivery, and

   o  Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance.

   This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual
   methodology of the solution will be different for each.  Regardless,
   the routing solution is expected:

   o  To be scalable,

   o  To avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, and

   o  To be robust enough to achieve high reliability and automatically
      adjust to changes/problems in the multicast infrastructure.





Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as
   possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some
   cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different
   peering points.  However, that is entirely an implementation issue.

4.2.1.  Native Multicast Routing Aspects

   Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains
   coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their
   network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers).  An
   example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across
   two Administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the
   interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled:

   o  Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a
      subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1).  This information is in the
      form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the EU
      client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, as well
      as additional information for the application about the source
      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
      source of the multicast stream.  The metadata may also contain
      alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast
      address of the stream.

   o  The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
      stream [RFC4604].  To facilitate this process, the two AD's need
      to do the following:

      o  Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points.

      o  Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity
         and Utilization.

      o  Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper
         multicast delivery across the peering points.

4.2.2.  GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point

   If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and
   both AD's are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to
   provision a GRE tunnel between the two AD's - see Use Case 3.2.2.
   The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network
   engineering decision, but generally will be between the border
   routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source
   (or source access router).  The GRE tunnel would allow end-to-end
   native multicast or AMT multicast to traverse the interface.
   Coordination and advertisement of the source IP is still required.



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1 to
   facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points.

4.2.3.  Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels

   Unlike Native Multicast (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast
   environment is more complex.  It presents a dual layered problem
   because there are two criteria that should be simultaneously met:

   o  Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has multicast
      connectivity to the content source, and

   o  Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.

   There are essentially two components to the AMT specification

   AMT Relays:  These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast
      traffic to the receivers (i.e., End-Points).  The AMT Relay will
      receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and
      will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT
      Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast packets
      and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway.  In
      addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and activity
      statistics collection.  This results in moving the replication
      point closer to the end user, and cuts down on traffic across the
      network.  Thus, the linear costs of adding unicast subscribers can
      be avoided.  However, unicast replication is still required for
      each requesting End-Point within the unicast-only network.

   AMT Gateway (GW):  The Gateway will reside on an End-Point - this may
      be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB).  The AMT
      Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Application via
      an Application Programming Interface (API).  In this manner, the
      Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true Multicast
      End-Point.  The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT messages into UDP
      packets and send them through a tunnel (across the unicast-only
      infrastructure) to the AMT Relay.

   The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that
   are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled AD's.  An AMT
   tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the
   peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering
   point.  One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is
   established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned
   element.  The two AD's can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay
   Anycast addresses with each other.  Alternately, they may decide to
   simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be an optimal
   solution in terms of scalability.



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 describe more complicated AMT situations as
   AD-2 is not multicast enabled.  For these cases, the End User device
   needs to be able to setup an AMT tunnel in the most optimal manner.
   There are many methods by which relay selection can be done including
   the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables [RFC7450].  The
   choice of the method is implementation dependent and is up to the
   network operators.  Comparison of various methods is out of scope for
   this document; it is for further study.

   An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries and
   Anycast IP addresses process for Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 is described
   here.  Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT
   Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the
   multicast topology of the source.  Note that this is strictly
   illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network
   operators.  The basic process is as follows:

   o  Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application.
      The metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an
      ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested
      stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the
      group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data.  The "S"
      portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the
      multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream
      originated by that source.  The metadata may also contain
      alternate delivery information such as the address of the unicast
      form of the content to be used, for example, if the multicast
      stream becomes unavailable.

   o  Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information
      provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in
      order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay.

   o  Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a
      specific unicast address of a relay.  Multiple relays will
      typically exist.  The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo-
      address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to
      the source.

   o  If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the
      AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to
      the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing
      choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU.  (Note
      that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is
      inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via
      provisioning in the network.  Details are out of scope for this
      document.)




Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   o  The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP
      address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required).
      Variations may exist as well.

   o  The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three-
      way handshake with the AMT Relay.

   o  AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT
      protocol messages).

   o  AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join
      the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed
      to that stream.

   o  AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel
      between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content
      to the EU.

4.3.  Back Office Functions - Provisioning 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 AD's.

   o  Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering,
      provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.

4.3.1.  Provisioning Guidelines

   Resources for basic connectivity between AD's Providers need to be
   provisioned as follows:

   o  Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
      delivery across AD's.

   o  Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
      all supporting back-offices of the AD's as appropriate.  This
      includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
      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.





Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 18]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
   triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata.  Hence, this
   metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and
   unicast fallback if applicable.  AD-2 must enable the delivery of
   this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this
   purpose.

   Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across many
   ISP backbones, peering and access networks.  If, however, native
   multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then:

   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).

   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



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 19]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


      provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
      access.  Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD's
      to support this option.

4.3.2.  Application Accounting Guidelines

   All interactions between pairs of AD's 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 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 AD's 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.




Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 20]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   The two AD's 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).

4.4.  Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring 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:

   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.

   o  Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be 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.

   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.

   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.  EUs 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.





Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 21]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   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.




Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 22]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


      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.  Troubleshooting and Diagnostics

   Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should
   have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast
   troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly.
   Issues may become apparent or identified either through network
   monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described in
   section 4.4.

   It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected according
   to currently established practices [MDH-04].  However, given that
   inter-domain multicast creates a significant interdependence of
   proper networking functionality between providers there does exist a
   need for providers to be able to signal/alert each other if there are
   any issues noted by either one.

   Service providers may also wish to allow limited read-only
   administrative access to their routers via a looking-glass style
   router proxy to facilitate the debugging of multicast control state
   and peering status.  Software implementations for this purpose is
   readily available [Traceroute], [I-D.ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2] and can




Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 23]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   be easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast
   troubleshooting commands in a secure manner.

   The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of
   this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described
   in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring).  Some general
   communications issues are stated as follows.

   o  Appropriate communications channels will be established between
      the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to
      facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic
      troubleshooting.

   o  A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open
      issues.  Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods could
      be established depending on the severity of the identified
      trouble.

6.  Security Considerations

   From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected
   to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to
   registered and authenticated end users.  Additionally:

   o  Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement
      for multicast delivery.

   o  Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security
      breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for
      shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic
      over alternative peering points.  It is also expected that
      appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of securing
      the identified breach.

   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.  For
   example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 24]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged
   between them.

   Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content
   is done at the application layer between the client application and
   the source.  This may involve some kind of token authentication and
   is done at the application layer independently of the two AD's.  If
   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.  Implementation details are beyond the scope of this
   document.

7.  IANA Considerations

   No considerations identified in this document

8.  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 4.2 provides an overview of one method that
   finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an Anycast
   IP address for AMT Relays.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
   suggestions, comments, and corrections:

   Mikael Abrahamsson

   Hitoshi Asaeda

   Dale Carder

   Tim Chown

   Leonard Giuliano



Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 25]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   Jake Holland

   Joel Jaeggli

   Albert Manfredi

   Stig Venaas

   Henrik Levkowetz

10.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   Please see discussion on mailing list for changes before -111.

   -11: version in IESG review.

   -12: XML'ified version of -11, committed solely to make rfcdiff
   easier.  XML versions hosted on https://www.github.com/toerless/
   peering-bcp

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
              Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.








Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 26]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


   [RFC4604]  Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
              Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
              August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.

   [RFC4609]  Savola, P., Lehtonen, R., and D. Meyer, "Protocol
              Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast
              Routing Security Issues and Enhancements", RFC 4609,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4609, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4609>.

   [RFC7450]  Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [BCP38]    Ferguson, P., et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating
              Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address
              Spoofing", BCP: 38, May 2000.

   [BCP41]    Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
              September 2000.

11.2.  Informative References

   [INF_ATIS_10]
              "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a
              Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard
              A-0200010, December 2012.

   [Traceroute]
              , <http://traceroute.org/#source%20code>.

   [I-D.ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2]
              Asaeda, H., Meyer, K., and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version 2:
              Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-
              mtrace-v2-20 (work in progress), October 2017.








Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 27]


Internet-DraftMulticast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points  October 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Percy S. Tarapore (editor)
   AT&T

   Phone: 1-732-420-4172
   Email: tarapore@att.com


   Robert Sayko
   AT&T

   Phone: 1-732-420-3292
   Email: rs1983@att.com


   Greg Shepherd
   Cisco

   Email: shep@cisco.com


   Toerless Eckert (editor)
   Futurewei Technologies Inc.

   Email: tte@cs.fau.de


   Ram Krishnan
   SupportVectors

   Email: ramkri123@gmail.com



















Tarapore, et al.         Expires April 30, 2018                [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/