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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

MBONED Working Group                                  Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft                                             Robert Sayko
Intended status: BCP                                               AT&T
Expires: April 27, 2015                                   Greg Shepherd
                                                        Toerless Eckert
                                                                  Cisco
                                                           Ram Krishnan
                                                                 Brocade
                                                        October 27, 2014


       Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
                draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-07.txt


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 http://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 27, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.





Tarapore, et al         Expires April 27, 2015                 [Page 1]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   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.

Abstract

   This document examines the process of transporting applications via
   multicast across inter-domain peering points. The objective is to
   describe the setup process for multicast-based delivery across
   administrative domains and document supporting functionality to
   enable this process.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport.......4
   3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast..........5
      3.1. Native Multicast..........................................5
      3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel.....................7
      3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
      Enabled........................................................8
      3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast
      Enabled........................................................9
      3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through
      AD-2..........................................................11
   4. Supporting Functionality......................................13
      4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines14
      4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15
         4.2.1    Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................15
         4.2.2    GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....16
         4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................16
      4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines...19
         4.3.1    Provisioning Guidelines...........................19
         4.3.2    Application Accounting Billing Guidelines.........20
         4.3.3    Log Management Guidelines.........................21
         4.3.4    Settlement Guidelines.............................21
      4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22
      4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...24


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 2]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   5. Security Considerations.......................................25
   6. IANA Considerations...........................................25
   7. Conclusions...................................................25
   8. References....................................................26
      8.1. Normative References.....................................26
      8.2. Informative References...................................26
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................26

   1. Introduction

   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 applications offers significant
   savings for utilization of resources in any given administrative
   domain. End user demand for such applications is growing. Often,
   this requires transporting such applications across administrative
   domains via inter-domain peering points.

   The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:
     o Describe the process and establish guidelines for setting up
        multicast-based delivery of applications across inter-domain
        peering points, and
     o Catalog  all  required  information  exchange  between  the
        administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery.

   While there are sSeveral multicast protocols are available for use,
   this BCP will focus the discussion to those that are applicable and
   recommended for the peering requirements of today's service model,
   including:

     o Protocol  Independent  Multicast  -  Source  Specific  Multicast
        (PIM-SSM) [RFC4607]
     o Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) v3 [RFC4604]
     o Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC4604]

   This BCP is independent of the choice of multicast protocol; it
   focuses solely on the implications for the inter-domain peering
   points.

   This document therefore serves the purpose of a "Gap Analysis"
   exercise for this process. The rectification of any gaps identified
   - whether they involve protocol extension development or otherwise -
   is beyond the scope of this document and is for further study.



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 3]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014



   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) [IETF-ID-AMT].
     o The application stream originates at a source in Domain 1.
     o An End User associated with Domain 2 requests the application.
        It is assumed that the application is suitable for delivery via
        multicast means (e.g., live steaming of major events, software
        downloads to large numbers of end user devices, etc.)
     o The request is communicated to the application source which
        provides the relevant multicast delivery information to the EU
        device via a "manifest file". At a minimum, this file contains
        the {Source, Group} or (S,G) information relevant to the
        multicast stream.
     o The application client in the EU device then joins the
        multicast stream distributed by the application source in
        domain 1 utilizing the (S,G) information provided in the
        manifest file. The manifest file may also contain additional
        information that the application client can use to locate the
        source and join the stream.

   It should be noted that the second administrative domain - domain 2
   - may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 1 network
   operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network operated
   by a single customer. The peering point architecture and
   requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the
   Enterprise case.







Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 4]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   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
   network possibility will be described in this section. A
   comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be
   exchanged between the two domains to support various functions
   enabling the application transport is provided in section 4.

   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 three possible Use Cases for consideration.

   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 (MBGP or BGMP)
   I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection

      Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast


   Advantages of this configuration are:



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 5]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains

     o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream
        when compared to unicast transmissions.

   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
   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:

     o Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended
        as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.

     o 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.

     o 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.

     o 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.







Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 6]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   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
   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 unicast transmissions.

     o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD-
        1 and/or 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 GRE must be in place prior to stream starting.

     o GRE 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.

     o GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering
        points to support multicast delivery between domains.



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 7]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     o It  is  recommended  that  the  GRE  tunnel  (tunnel  server)
        configuration in the source network is such that it only
        advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the
        entire  network.  This  practice  will  prevent  unauthorized
        delivery  of  applications  through  the  tunnel  (e.g.,  if
        application - e.g., content - is not part of an agreed inter-
        domain partnership).



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




Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 8]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     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
        bytes transmitted.

     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 to select the AR from the AG
        automatically.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

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

     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. This implies that the interconnection between AD-
   2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in
   Figure 3.







Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                 [Page 9]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014



      -------------------               -------------------
     /        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
   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.


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 10]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   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 August 3, 2014                [Page 11]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014



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

   (Note: Diff-marks for the figure have been removed to improve
      viewing)

   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 AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway


   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


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 12]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


        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.

   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. Supporting Functionality

   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.



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 13]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   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

     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, BGMP, and
        MBGP.

     o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then
        there needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth
        reserved for multicast delivery.

     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.

   From a security perspective, it is expected that normal/typical
   security procedures will be followed by each AD to facilitate
   multicast delivery to registered and authenticated end users. Some
   security aspects for consideration are:

     o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement
        if dedicated 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


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 14]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


        over  alternated  peering  points.  It  is  also  expected  that
        appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of
        securing the identified breach.



   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 to be:

      o Scalable

      o Avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, and

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

   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, but 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 is usually done via
       an appropriate file transfer - this file is typically known as
       the manifest file. It contains instructions directing the EU


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 15]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


       client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and
       also 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 file 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 [RFC2236].

   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 (Other??)

   4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point

   If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and
   both ADs are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to
   provision a GRE tunnel between the two ADs - 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.

   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 (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 meet:

     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:



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 16]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     o 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 endpoint within the
       unicast-only network.

     o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an on 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 endpoint 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 ADs. 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 ADs can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay
   Anycast addresses with each other - though they may alternately
   decide to simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be
   a optimal solution in terms of scalability.

   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.
   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.  An example of a basic delivery
   via an AMT Multicast process for these two Use Cases is as follows:

  o The manifest file is obtained by the EU client application. This
     file 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


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 17]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     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 manifest file 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 in the manifest file, 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.)

  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.





Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 18]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   Note: Further routing discussion on optimal method to find "best AMT
   Relay/GW combination" and information exchange between AD's to be
   provided.

   4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines

   Back Office refers to the following:

   o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery
     of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs.
   o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering,
     provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.


   4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines

   Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be
   provisioned as follows:

   o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
     delivery across ADs.
   o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
     all supporting back-offices of the ADs as appropriate. This
     includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
     office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.
   o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support
     these.

   Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain
   delivery are as follows.

   The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
   triggered via the manifest file. Hence, this file must be provided
   to the EU regarding multicast URL - and unicast fallback if
   applicable. AD-2 must build manifest and provision capability to
   provide the file to the EU.

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

   o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either
     from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or
     AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 19]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a
     client download site (note: this could be an Application Source
     site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source
     would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is
     provided (assuming multiple possible clients).
   o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2
     AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group
     addresses for streams it is allowed to join.
   o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to
     locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and
     shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's
     multicast source.

   Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are
   stated as follows.

   Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer
   care access to their own systems.

   AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility
   to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by
   AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g.
   to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways:

   o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that
     operations and customer care continue using their own systems.
     This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate
     provisioning of necessary resources.
   o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access
     directly  to  AD-2's  system.  In  this  scenario,  additional
     provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
     access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s
     to support this option.

   4.3.2 Application Accounting Billing Guidelines

   All interactions between pairs of ADs can be discovered and/or be
   associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.
   Supporting guidelines are as follows:

   o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master
     account.
   o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
     protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 20]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.
     customer accounts, security accounts, etc.

   4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines

   Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of
   interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged
   between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows.

   AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples
   of log types include the following:

   o Usage information logs at aggregate level.
   o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
   o Grouped or sequenced application access
     performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support
     potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of
     aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets
     of software download.
   o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement
     (with additional detail potentially provided during security
     events, by agreement).
   o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting.
   o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for
     shared troubleshooting.
   o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared
     troubleshooting.

   The two ADs may supply additional security logs to each other as
   agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following:

   o Information related to general security-relevant activity which
     may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as
     types and counts of attacks detected, related source information,
     related target information, etc.
   o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with
     additional detail potentially provided during security events, by
     agreement)

   4.3.4 Settlement Guidelines

   Settlements between the ADs relate to (1) billing and reimbursement
   aspects for delivery of applications, and (2) aggregation,
   transport, and collection of data in preparation for the billing and


Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 21]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   reimbursement aspects for delivery of applications for the
   Application Provider. At a high level:

   o AD-2 collects "usage" data for AD-1 related to application
     delivery to End Users, and submits invoices to AD-1 based on this
     usage data. The data may include information related to the type
     of content delivered, total bandwidth utilized, storage utilized,
     features supported, etc.
   o AD-1 collects all available data from partner AD-2 and creates
     aggregate reports pertaining to responsible Application Providers,
     and submits subsequent reports to these Providers for
     reimbursements.
   o AD-1 may convey charging values or charging rules to the AD-2,
     proactively or in response to a query, especially in cases where
     these may change.
   o AD-2 may convey prices/rates to AD-1, proactively or in response
     to a query, especially in cases where these may change.
   o Usage data may be collected per end user or on an aggregated
     basis; the method of collection will depend on the application
     delivered and/or the agreements with the source provider. In all
     cases, usage volume is expected to be in terms of delivered packet
     bits or bytes.

   4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines

   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.



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 22]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


     o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1
        may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA
        agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2
        if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network.

   Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole)
   provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source
   provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service
   problems occur. EU's direct their complaints to the source provider;
   in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The
   responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1
   will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its
   own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools
   to monitor multicast service status in its own network.

     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.



Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 23]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


          o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop.

          o Locations of affected EUs.

     o Both  AD's  conduct  some  form  of  root  cause  analysis  for
        multicast  service  delivery  problems.  Examples  of  various
        factors for consideration include:

         o Verification that the service configuration matches the
           product features.

         o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer
           problems and resource troubles into a single root service
           problem.

         o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving
           consideration to problem impact, service level agreement,
           etc.

         o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a
           series of tests over a period of time.

         o Analysis of test results.

         o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data.

         o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer
           (CP).

     o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the
        problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to
        verify and validate the success of the fix.

     o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the
        multicast  application  source  provider  may  have  to  be
        compensated  by  AD-1.  Subsequently,  AD-1  may  have  to  be
        compensated by AD-2 based on the contract.

   4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines

   There are multiple options for instituting reliability
   architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should
   work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast
   application source providers.




Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 24]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by
   provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means.

   5. Security Considerations

   DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication
   should be the responsibility of the multicast application source
   provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate
   agreements with the source provider.

   Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication
   and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with
   normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security
   and network security

   AD-1 and AD-2 should have mechanisms in place to ensure proper
   accounting for the volume of bytes delivered through the peering
   point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs.

   If there are problems related to failure of token authentication
   when end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating
   proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end
   servers querying the multicast application source provider's token
   authentication server are communicating properly) should be
   considered. Details will have to be worked out during implementation
   (e.g., test tokens or trace token exchange process).

   6. IANA Considerations



   7. Conclusions

   This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case
   scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across
   peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of
   guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases.

   For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is
   recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the
   various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in
   AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as
   appropriate. Section 4.3 provides an overview of one method that
   finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an
   Anycast IP address for AMT Relays.




Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 25]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   8. References

   8.1. Normative References

   [RFC2784]   D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina,
   "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000

   [IETF-ID-AMT] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", draft-
   ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-13, April 2012, Work in progress

   [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management
   Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery
   Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604,
   August 2006

   [RFC4607] H. Holbrook, et al, "Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4607,
   August 2006

   8.2. Informative References

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

   9. Acknowledgments






















Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 26]


IETF I-D  Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points    April 2014


   Authors' Addresses

   Percy S. Tarapore
   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
   Phone:
   Email: shep@cisco.com

   Toerless Eckert
   Cisco
   Phone:
   Email: eckert@cisco.com

   Ram Krishnan
   Brocade
   Phone:
   Email: ramk@brocade.com























Tarapore, et al         Expires August 3, 2014                [Page 27]


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