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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

mboned                                                       T. Hayashi,
Internet-Draft                                                 H. Satou,
Intended status: Informational                                   H. Ohta
Expires: February 25, 2011                                           NTT
                                                                    H.He
                                                                  Nortel
                                                               S. Vaidya
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           August 24, 2010


 Requirements for Multicast AAA coordinated between Content Provider(s)
                    and Network Service Provider(s)
                    draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-10

Abstract

   This memo presents requirements in the area of accounting and access
   control for IP multicasting.  The scope of the requirements is
   limited to cases where Authentication, Accounting and Authorization
   (AAA) functions are coordinated between Content Provider(s) and
   Network Service Provider(s).

   In order to describe the new requirements of a multi-entity Content
   Deliver System(CDS) using multicast, the memo presents three basic
   business models: 1) the Content Provider and the Network Provider are
   the same entity, 2) the Content Provider(s) and the Network
   Provider(s) are separate entities and users are not directly billed,
   and 3) the Content Provider(s) and the Network Provider(s) are
   separate entities and users are billed based on content consumption
   or subscriptions.  The requirements of these three models are listed
   and evaluated as to which aspects are already supported by existing
   technologies and which aspects are not.

   General requirements for accounting and admission control
   capabilities including quality-of-service (QoS) related issues are
   listed and the constituent logical functional components are
   presented.

   This memo assumes that the capabilities can be realized by
   integrating AAA functionalities with a multicast CDS system, with
   IGMP/MLD at the edge of the network.

Status of this Memo




Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


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

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2011.


1.  Introduction

   Broadband access networks such as ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber
   Line) or FTTH (Fiber to the Home) have been deployed widely in recent
   years.  Content Delivery Service (CDS) is expected to be a major
   application provided through broadband access networks.  Because many
   services such as television broadcasting require huge bandwidth
   (e.g., 6Mbit/s) and processing power at the content server(s), IP
   multicast is used as an efficient delivery mechanism for CDS.

   A single entity may design and be responsible for a system that
   covers the various common high-level requirements of a multicasting
   CDS such as 1) content serving, 2) the infrastructure to multicast
   it, 3) network and content access control mechanisms.  For cases in
   which the business model includes the direct billing of users, the
   single provider of both content and network services has sufficient
   data in its control to bill users based on their content consumption.
   Furthermore it is possible to tie access to the network and QoS based
   on a user's contract status.  Therefore current technologies support
   the single entity case.

   Often, however, the content provision and network provision roles are



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   split between separate entities.  Commonly, Content Providers (CP) do
   not build and maintain their own multicast network infrastructure as
   this is not their primary business area.  Instead, CPs often purchase
   transport and management services from network service providers.
   This memo lists the requirements of a business model in which the NSP
   provides CDS using multicast as one such contractible service.

   The direct revenue source for the multiple entity provider is a
   defining aspect of the business model which often has implications on
   requirements for the technologies that support the system.  There are
   cases such as the the advertising-based model where billing end-users
   is not done and therefore accounting of content consumption can be
   anonymous and/or in aggegrate.  In these cases the requirements of
   the business model for accounting for billing purposes are already
   supported by existing technologies.  However, the NSP can not
   guarantee high quality transmission on a per-content basis with
   existing technologies.

   There is also the business model in which the individual user of
   multicasted contents is the source of revenue for both consumed
   content and network resources.  In this model the NSP wants to
   receive the appropriate fees for multicast services and the NSP
   undertakes collecting bills as a proxy for the CPs.  The NSP may
   provide high quality service by admission control.  Current standards
   do not fully support this model and this memo will list the
   requirements which need to be supported.


2.  Definitions and Abbreviations

2.1.  Definitions

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

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

      Eligible user: Users may be eligible (permitted) to access
      resources because of the attributes they have (e.g., delivery may
      require possession of the correct password or digital
      certificate), their equipment has (e.g., content may only be
      eligible to players that can decode H.264 or 3GPP streams), their
      access network has (e.g., HDTV content may only be eligible to
      users with 10 Mbps or faster access line), or because of where
      they are in network topology (e.g., HDTV content may not be
      eligible for users across congested links) or in actual geography
      (e.g., content may only be licensed for distribution to certain
      countries), and, of course, a mix of attributes may be required



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


      for eligibility or ineligibility.

      User: In this document user refers to a requester and a recipient
      of multicast data, termed a viewer in CDS.

      User-based accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior,
      when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel
      she/he receives, etc.

2.2.  Abbreviations

      AAA: Authentication, Accounting and Authorization

      ASM: Any-Source Multicast

      CDS: Content Delivery Service

      CP: Content Provider

      IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol

      MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery

      NSP: Network Service Provider

      SSM: Source Specific Multicast

      QoS: Quality of Service


3.  Current Business Models

3.1.  Single entity model where CP and NSP are the same entity

   One existing business model is that of a single entity responsible
   for both content and network service provision which bills its users
   based on content provision.  (See figure below.)














Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


          +-----------------------------------------------------+
          |              +---------+                            |
          |              | Content |                            |
          |              | Server  |                            |
          |              +----+----+                            |
          |                   |                                 |
          | CP+NSP    +-------+-------+                         |
          |           | Provider Edge |                         |
          |           +-------+-------+                         |
          |                   |                                 |
          |                   |                                 |
          |           +-------------+                           |
          |           | User Edge   |                           |
          |           +--+---+---+--+                           |
          |             /    |    \                             |
          +----------- / --- | --- \ ---------------------------+
                      /      |      \
                     /       |       \ <- user/network interface
                    /        |        \
         +---------++  +-----+----+   ++---------+
         |Client #A |  |Client #B |   |Client #C |
         +----------+  +----------+   +----------+
           User A       User B         User C


                   Example of CDS network configuration

                                 Figure 1

   In this model the network can query a content-policy-enabled AAA
   server within its own domain at the time a user requests content.
   The network can provide the AAA server with information such as user
   identity, device identity, the requested content (channel),
   geographic information, method of network connection, etc. that might
   be required for the content provision authorization decision.  It is
   therefore possible to configure a network to deny network access
   based on the content policy decision.

   In this model there are no issues of mapping user identities between
   different entity domains.  The provider has access to the information
   on which user accessed from which point on what device.  Furthermore
   as network provider they can record not only when a user joined or
   left a certain channel, but also if packets were actually delivered.
   Moreover, there are no inter-entity security and privacy concerns
   between the CP and NSP.

   The single entity network service and content provider also knows the
   content schedules for various channels.  This is important not only



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   for time and content-sensitive authorization decisions but also for
   providing meaningful billing details to end users.

3.2.  Multiple entity model without direct content-based billing

   An additional model for delivering contents over a CDS is the
   advertising-based model where billing end-users is not done.  In this
   model the four different roles may be filled by separate entities:
   Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider (NSP), user clients,
   and advertising sponsors.  In the general case of this business
   model, insofar as the advertiser does not require user-based metrics
   the accounting of content consumption can be anonymous and/or in
   aggregrate and can be off-line from the multicast-with-AAA CDS system
   itself.  Therefore this model does not require any new standards to
   provide user-based accounting for a multi-entity CDS using multicast
   with AAA.  (Providing this data in near real-time and inline would
   entail further requirements which can be dealt with in a separate
   memo if necessary.)

   A more complex version of this business model is conceivable in which
   a CP may require a user to enter into a subscription contract, even
   when the user does not get billed for content consumption.  For
   example, a CP may value individual data because it allows it to
   supply the advertisers with rich, user-segmented data and charge a
   higher premium.  In that case the requirements of the next section
   "CDS with direct billing of the end user" are generally applicable
   because of the need to link the user data which the CP has to the
   actual viewing (or stream downloading) data that the NSP has.


4.  Proposed Model: Multity-entity CDS

   In this model the networks for CDS contain three different types of
   entities: Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider (NSP), and
   user clients.  An NSP owns the network resources (infrastructure).
   It accommodates content providers on one side and accommodates user
   clients on the other side.  NSP provides the network for CDS to two
   entities (i.e., CPs and user clients).  A CP provides content to each
   user through the network of NSPs and charges users for content.  NSPs
   are responsible for delivering the content to user clients, and for
   controlling the network resources.  A NSP charges a user or a CP for
   network usage.  A NSP may charge users for content as a proxy of the
   CP.








Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


          +-------------+  +-------------+  +-------------+
          | CP          |  | CP          |  | CP          |
          |          #1 |  |          #2 |  |          #3 |
          | +---------+ |  | +---------+ |  | +---------+ |
          | | Content | |  | | Content | |  | | Content | |
          | | Server  | |  | | Server  | |  | | Server  | |
          | +-------+-+ |  | +----+----+ |  | +-+-------+ |
          +----------\--+  +------|------+  +--/----------+
                      \           |           /
                       \          |          / <- network/network
                        \         |         /     interface
          +------------- \ ------ | ------ / ----+
          |               \       |       /      |
          |   NSP         +-+-----+-----+-+      |
          |               | Provider Edge |      |
          |               +-------+-------+      |
          |                       |              |
          |                       |              |
          |             +--+------+---+          |
          |             | User Edge   |          |
          |             +--+---+---+--+          |
          |               /    |    \            |
          +------------- / --- | --- \ ----------+
                        /      |      \
                       /       |       \ <- user/network interface
                      /        |        \
           +---------++  +-----+----+   ++---------+
           |Client #A |  |Client #B |   |client #C |
           +----------+  +----------+   +----------+
           User A        User B         User C


                   Example of CDS network configuration

                                 Figure 2

   The CP provides detailed channel information (e.g., Time table of
   each channel) to the information server which is either managed by
   the NSP or CP.  An end-user client gets the information from the
   information server.  In this model, multicasting is used in the NSP's
   CDS network, and there are two different contracts.  One is the
   contract between the NSP and the user which permits the user to
   access the basic network resources of the NSP.  Another contract is
   between the CP and user to permit the user to subscribe to multicast
   content.  Because the CP and NSP are different entities, and the NSP
   generally does not allow a CP to control (operate) the network
   resources of the NSP, user authorization needs to be done by the CP
   and NSP independently.  Since there is no direct connection to the



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   user/network interface, the CP cannot control the user/network
   interface.  A user may want to move to another place, or may want to
   change her/his device (client) any time without interrupting her/his
   reception of services.

4.1.  Information Required by Entities to Support the Proposed Business
      Model

      User identification and Authentication:

      The network should be able to identify and authenticate each user
      when they attempt to access the service requesting content.  This
      user identification is required for:

         authorization for content consumption eligibility

         user tracking for billing based on actual content consumption
         and network resource usage

      With current protocols (IGMP/MLD), the sender cannot distinguish
      which receivers (end hosts) are actually receiving the
      information.  The sender must rely on the information from the
      multicasting routers.  This can be complicated if the sender and
      routers are maintained by different entities.  Furthermore, the
      current user associated with receiver must be identified.

      User Authorization:

      The network, at its option, should be able to authorize a user's
      access to content or a multicast group, so as to meet any demands
      by a CP to prevent content access by ineligible users.

      Sharing Programming data:

      NSP needs a mechanism to receive channel programming data from the
      CP in order to provide the information to the user at channel
      selection time and also for somehow logging or recording what
      programming content has been streamed to the user.  In some cases
      the CP may contract the NSP to bill the user as a proxy for the
      CP.  In this case there needs to be a mechanism for supplying the
      user-based viewing history with human-meaningful channel data to
      the end-user.

      Content usage information by user:

      For billing and auditing purposes the CP needs the NSP to provide
      it with detailed per-user usage behavior indicating what content
      was consumed from when to when.  There needs to be a mechanism to



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


      supply the user-based viewing history from the NSP to the CP.  If
      the CP is selling on an on-demand model, or tiered subscription
      basis or supplies some sort of online account statement this
      history needs to be fed back to the CP in near real-time.  To
      assemble such data on user behavior, it is necessary to precisely
      log information such as who (host/user) is accessing what content
      at what time (join action) until what time (leave action).  The
      result of the access-control decision (e.g. results of
      authorization) would also be valuable information.  The desired
      degree of logging precisions would depend on the application used.

      Notification to Users of the Result of the Join Request:

      It should be possible to provide information to the user about the
      status of his/her join request(granted/denied/other).  Such
      information can be used to give meaningful feedback to the user.


5.  Admission Control for Multicasting

   In order to guarantee certain QoS it is important for network
   providers (at their option) to be able to protect their network
   resources from being wasted, (either maliciously or accidentally).
   The NSP should be able to apply appropriate access controlling
   actions based on user eligibility status:

      The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling
      actions when an eligible user requests an action (such as a join
      or a leave.)

      The network should be able to reject any action requested from an
      ineligible user.

   In order to maintain a predefined QoS level, depending on the NSP's
   policy, a user edge should be able to control the number of streams
   it serves to a user, and total bandwidth consumed to that user.  For
   example if the number of streams being served to a certain user has
   reached the limit defined by the NSP's policy, then the user edge
   should not accept a subsequent "join" until one of the existing
   streams is terminated.  Similarly, if the NSP is controlling by per-
   user bandwidth consumption, then a subsequent "join" should not be
   accepted if delivery of the requested stream would push the consumed
   bandwidth over the NSP policy-defined limit.

   The network may need to control the combined bandwidth for all
   channels at the physical port of the edge router or switch so that
   these given physical entities are not overflowed with traffic.  This
   entails being able to control the number of channels delivered, the



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   bandwidth for each channel and the combined bandwidth for all
   channels.


6.  Reauthorization/ deauthorization requirements

   A mechanism for periodic reauthorization of users who have already
   joined a channel stream should be supported.  The reauthorization
   could be an authorization check based on the NSP's eligibility
   requirements and/or could involve the NSP querying the CP for
   reauthorization of a user.

   A mechanism for deauthorization should be supported for cases in
   which a user is deemed ineligible by the NSP and/or CP at the time of
   a reauthorization check.  If a NSP revokes authorization for the
   network for a user it should force a leave, and record details of the
   leave (including the time and reason for the forced leave.)  If a CP
   revokes authorization to content for a user the CP signals to the NSP
   to cease streaming to that user.  An example usage case for
   deauthorizing a user is one where a user has a subscription or has
   paid for a certain amount of content and has reached that limit.  In
   some models, it is conceivable that a CP could communicate the
   parameters for de-authorization to the NSP at the time of the
   original join's authorization so as to make NSP->CP reauthorization
   requests unnecessary.


7.  Performance requirements

   Channel Join Latency and Leave Latency

   Commercial implementations of IP multicasting are likely to have
   strict requirements in terms of user experience.  Join latency is the
   time between when a user sends a "join" request and when the
   requested data streaming first reaches the user.  Leave latency is
   the time between when a user sends a "leave" signal and when the
   network stops streaming to the user.  Leave and Join latencies impact
   the acceptable user experience for fast channel surfing.  In an IP-TV
   application, users are not going to be receptive to a slow response
   time when changing channels.  If there are policies for controlling
   the number of simultaneous streams a user may access then channel
   surfing will be determined by the join and leave latencies.
   Furthermore, leave affects resource consumption: with a low "leave
   latency" network providers could minimize streaming content when
   there are no audiences.  It is important that any overhead for
   authentication, authorization, and access-control be minimized at the
   times of joining and leaving multicast channels so as to achieve join
   and leave latencies acceptable in terms of user experience.  For



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   example this is important in an IP-TV application, because users are
   not going to be receptive to a slow response time when changing
   channels.


8.  Concomitant requirements

   Scalability

   Solutions that are used for AAA and QoS enabled IP multicasting
   should scale enough to support the needs of content providers and
   network operators.  NSP's multicast access and QoS policies should be
   manageable for large scale users. (e.g. millions of users, thousands
   of edge-routers)

   Service and Terminal Portability:

   Depending on the service, networks should allow for a user to receive
   a service from different places and/or with a different terminal
   device.

   Deployable as Alternative to Unicast

   IP Multicasting would ideally be available as an alternative to IP
   unicasting when the "on-demand" nature of unicasting is not required.
   Therefore interfaces to multicasting should allow for easy
   integration into CDS systems that support unicasting.  Especially
   equivalent interfaces for authorization, access control and
   accounting capabilities should be provided.

   Support of ASM and SSM

   Both ASM (G), and SSM (S,G) should be supported as multicast models.

   Support for Tunneled Multicast

   The AAA requirements specified in this document should apply to both
   end-to-end native multicast and to tunnel-enabled multicast, such as
   AMT multicast: [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast]

   Small Impact on the Existing Products

   Impact on the existing products (e.g., protocols, software, etc.)
   should be as minimal as possible.  Ideally the NSP should be able to
   use the same infrastructure (such as access control) to support
   commercial multicast services for the so called "triple play"
   services: voice (VoIP), video, and broadband Internet access
   services.  When a CP requires the NSP to provide a level of QoS



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   surpassing "best effort" delivery or to provide special services
   (e.g., to limited users with specific attributes), certain parameters
   of the CDS may be defined by a contractual relation between the NSP
   and the CP.  However, just as for best-effort unicast, multicast
   allows for content sourced by CPs without a contractual relation with
   the NSP.  Therefore, solutions addressing the requirements defined in
   this memo should not make obsolete multicasting that does not include
   AAA features.  NSPs may offer tiered services, with higher QOS,
   accounting, authentication, etc., depending on contractual relation
   with the CPs.  It is therefore important that Multicast AAA and QoS
   functions be as modular and flexible as possible.

   Multicast Replication

   The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication is
   being done on an access-node (e.g.  DSLAMs or OLTs).


9.  Constituent Logical Functional Components

   Below is a diagram of a AAA enabled multicasting network, including
   the logical components within the various entities.





























Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


         +-------------------------------+
         | user                          |
         |+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+|
         || CPE                         ||
         ||                             ||
         |+- - - - - | - - - - - - - - -+|
         +-----------|-------------------+
         |
         -------|------ IFa
         |
         +-----------|-----------------------+
         |  NSP      |                       |
         |           |                       |
         |+- - - - - |- - _+   + - - - - - + |
         ||        |   | |   |           | |
         |    +------|-+ |       +--------+  |
         ||   | AN     | | |   | | MACF  || |
         |    |        | |       |        |  |
         ||   +------|-+ | |   | +---|----+| |
         |           |   |           |    |  |
         |           |   | |     IFd----- |  |
         |           |   |  IFb      |    |  |
         ||   +------|---+ | | | +---|----+| |
         |    |          |---|---| mAAA   |  |
         ||   | NAS      | | | | |(MACF *)|| | * optional
         |    +----------+ |     +--------+  |
         ||+- - - - - - - -+ - - |- - - - -+ |
         +-----------------------|-----------+
         |
         -------|------ IFc
         |
         +-----------------------|-------+
         | CP               +---------+  |
         |                  |  CP-AAA |  |
         |                  +---------+  |
         +-------------------------------+

          AAA enabled multicasting network with admission control

                                 Figure 3

   The user entity includes the CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) which
   connects the receiver (s).

   The NSP (Network Service Provider) includes the transport system and
   a logical element for multicast AAA functionality.  The TS (transport
   system) is comprised of the access node and NAS (Network Access
   Server) An AN (Access Node) may be connected directly to mAAA or a



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   NAS relays AAA information between an AN and a mAAA.  Descriptions of
   AN and its interfaces are out of the scope for this memo.  The
   multicast AAA function may be provided by a mAAA which may include
   the function that downloads Join access control lists to the NAS
   (this function is referred to as the conditional access policy
   control function.)

   Interface between mAAA and NAS

   The interface between mAAA and the NAS is labeled IFb in Figure 3.
   Over IFb the NAS sends an access request to the NSP-mAAA and the mAAA
   replies.  The mAAA may push conditional access policy to the NAS.

   CP-AAA

   The content provider may have its own AAA server which has the
   authority over access policy for its contents.

   Interface between user and NSP

   The interface between the user and the NSP is labeled IFa in Figure
   3.  Over IFa the user makes a multicasting request to the NSP.  The
   NSP may in return forward multicast traffic depending on the NSP and
   CP's policy decisions.

   Interface between NSP and CP

   The interface between the NSP and CP is labeled IFc.  Over IFc the
   NSP requests to the CP-AAA for access to contents and the CP replies.
   CP may also send conditional access policy over this interface for
   AAA-proxying.

   The NSP may also include a component that provides network resource
   management (e.g.  QoS management), as described in section 5,
   "Admission Control for Multicasting".  Resource management and
   admission control is provided by MACF (Multicast Admission Control
   Function).  This means that, before replying to the user's multicast
   request, the mAAA queries the MACF for a network resource access
   decision over the interface IFd.  The MACF is responsible for
   allocating network resources for forwarding multicast traffic.  MACF
   also receives Leave information from NAS so that MACF releases
   corresponding reserved resources.


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors of this draft would like to express their appreciation to
   Christian Jacquenet of France Telecom whose contributions to the "AAA



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   Framework for Multicasting" [draft-ietf-mboned-multiaaa-framework]
   largely influenced this draft; Pekka Savola of Netcore Ltd.; Daniel
   Alvarez, and Toerless Eckert of Cisco Systems; Sam Sambasivan of
   AT&T; Sanjay Wadhwa, Greg Shepherd, and Leonard Giuliano of Juniper;
   Tom Anschutz and Steven Wright of BellSouth; Nicolai Leymann of
   T-Systems; Bill Atwood of Concordia University; Carlos Garcia Braschi
   of Telefonica Empresas; Mark Altom, Andy Huang, Tom Imburgia, Han
   Nguyen, Doug Nortz of ATT Labs; Marshall Eubanks in his role as
   mboned WG chair; Ron Bonica in his role as Director as the Operations
   and Management Area; Stephen Rife of Digital Garage and David Meyer
   in his former role as mboned WG chair as well as their thanks to the
   participants of the MBONED WG in general.

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


11.  IANA Considerations

   This memo does not raise any IANA consideration issues.


12.  Security Considerations

   Accounting capabilities can be used to enhance the security of
   multicast networks by excluding ineligible clients from the networks.

   These requirements are not meant to address encryption issues.  Any
   solution meeting these requirements should allow for the
   implementation of encryption such as MSEC on the multicast data.


13.  Privacy considerations

   Any solution which meets these requirements should weigh the benefits
   of user-based accounting with the privacy considerations of the user.
   For example solutions are encouraged when applicable to consider
   encryption of the content data between the content provider and the
   user in such a way that the Network Provider does not know the
   contents of the channel.


14.  Conclusion

   This memo describes general requirements for providing AAA and QoS
   enabled IP multicasting services in multi-entity models.  A few
   models are evaluated with regard to their support by current
   technologies.  The "multi-entity CDS with direct billing of the end



Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   user" model is presented and requirements for information sharing
   between entities and requirements for admission control to enable
   guaranteeing of QoS are derived.  Performance requirements and
   concomitant requirements are also presented.


15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2975]  Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. Harrington, "Introduction to
              Accounting Management", RFC 2975, October 2000.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

15.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast]
              Thaler, D., Talwar, M., Aggarwal, A., Vicisano, L., and T.
              Pusateri, "Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels
              (AMT)", draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-09 (work in
              progress), June 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Tsunemasa Hayashi
   Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
   1-1 Hikarino'oka
   Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa  239-0847
   Japan

   Phone: +81 46 859 8790
   Email: hayashi.tsunemasa@lab.ntt.co.jp












Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


   Hiroaki Satou
   Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
   3-9-11 Midoricho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 4683
   Email: satou.hiroaki@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Hiroshi Ohta
   Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
   3-9-11 Midoricho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 3617
   Email: ohta.hiroshi@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Haixiang He
   Nortel
   600 Technology Park Drive
   Billerica, MA  01801
   USA

   Phone: +1 978 288 7482
   Email: haixiang@nortel.com





   Susheela Vaidya
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 525 1952
   Email: svaidya@cisco.com













Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Requirements for Multicast AAA           August 2010


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   (http://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.











Hayashi, et al.         Expires February 25, 2011              [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/