draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-05.txt   draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-06.txt 
DECADE H. Song DECADE H. Song
Internet-Draft N. Zong Internet-Draft N. Zong
Intended status: Informational Huawei Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: August 11, 2012 Y. Yang Expires: November 8, 2012 Y. Yang
Yale University Yale University
R. Alimi R. Alimi
Google Google
February 8, 2012 May 7, 2012
DECoupled Application Data Enroute (DECADE) Problem Statement DECoupled Application Data Enroute (DECADE) Problem Statement
draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-05 draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-06
Abstract Abstract
Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications have become widely used on the Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications have become widely used on the
Internet today and make up a large portion of the traffic in many Internet today and make up a large portion of the traffic in many
networks. In P2P applications, one technique for reducing the networks. In P2P applications, one technique for reducing the
transit and uplink P2P traffic is to introduce storage capabilities transit and uplink P2P traffic is to introduce storage capabilities
within the network. Traditional caches (e.g., P2P and Web caches) within the network. Traditional caches (e.g., P2P and Web caches)
provide such storage, but they are complex (due to explicitly provide such storage, but they are complex (due to explicitly
supporting individual P2P application protocols and cache refresh supporting individual P2P application protocols and cache refresh
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
skipping to change at page 2, line 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
3.2. P2P cache: a complex in-network storage . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. P2P cache: a complex in-network storage . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Ineffective integration of P2P applications . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Ineffective integration of P2P applications . . . . . . . 6
4. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. BitTorrent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. BitTorrent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Content Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Content Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Copyright and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Copyright and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Traffic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Traffic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Modification of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. Modification of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Masquerade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.5. Masquerade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6. Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6. Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.7. Message Stream Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.7. Message Stream Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Other Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Other Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
P2P applications, including both P2P streaming and P2P filesharing Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, including both P2P streaming and P2P
applications, make up a large fraction of the traffic in many ISP filesharing applications, make up a large fraction of the traffic in
networks today. One way to reduce bandwidth usage by P2P many ISP networks today. One way to reduce bandwidth usage by P2P
applications is to introduce storage capabilities in the networks. applications is to introduce storage capabilities in networks.
Allowing P2P applications to store and retrieve data from inside Allowing P2P applications to store and retrieve data from inside
networks can reduce traffic on the last-mile uplink, as well as on networks can reduce traffic on the last-mile uplink, as well as on
backbone and transit links. backbone and transit links.
P2P caches provide in-network storage and have been deployed in some P2P caches provide in-network storage and have been deployed in some
networks. However, the current P2P caching architecture poses networks. However, the current P2P caching architecture poses
challenges to both P2P cache vendors and P2P application developers. challenges to both P2P cache vendors and P2P application developers.
For P2P cache vendors, it is challenging to support a number of For P2P cache vendors, it is challenging to support a number of
continuously evolving P2P application protocols, due to lack of continuously evolving P2P application protocols, due to lack of
documentation, ongoing protocol changes, and rapid introduction of documentation, ongoing protocol changes, and rapid introduction of
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
users to explicitly store content into in-network storage. They also users to explicitly store content into in-network storage. They also
do not allow users to implement control over the content that has do not allow users to implement control over the content that has
been placed into the in-network storage. been placed into the in-network storage.
P2P applications suffer decreased efficiency, and the network P2P applications suffer decreased efficiency, and the network
infrastructure suffers increased load because there is no infrastructure suffers increased load because there is no
standardized interface for accessing storage and data transport standardized interface for accessing storage and data transport
services in the Internet. services in the Internet.
Both of these challenges can be effectively addressed by using an Both of these challenges can be effectively addressed by using an
open, standard protocol to access in-network storage. P2P open, standard protocol to access in-network storage [Data_Lockers].
applications can store and retrieve content in the in-network P2P applications can store and retrieve content in the in-network
storage, as well as control resources (e.g., bandwidth, connections) storage, as well as control resources (e.g., bandwidth, connections)
consumed by peers in a P2P application. As a simple example, a peer consumed by peers in a P2P application. As a simple example, a peer
of a P2P application may upload to other peers through its in-network of a P2P application may upload to other peers through its in-network
storage, saving its usage of last-mile uplink bandwidth. storage, saving its usage of last-mile uplink bandwidth.
In this document, we distinguish between two functional components of In this document, we distinguish between two functional components of
the native P2P application protocol: signaling and data access. the native P2P application protocol: signaling and data access.
Signaling includes operations such as handshaking and discovering Signaling includes operations such as handshaking and discovering
peer and content availability. The data access component transfers peer and content availability. The data access component transfers
content from one peer to another. content from one peer to another.
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
making it possible to develop a standard protocol. making it possible to develop a standard protocol.
2. Terminology and Concepts 2. Terminology and Concepts
The following terms have special meaning in the definition of the in- The following terms have special meaning in the definition of the in-
network storage system. network storage system.
in-network storage: A service inside a network that provides in-network storage: A service inside a network that provides
storage and bandwidth to network applications. In-network storage storage and bandwidth to network applications. In-network storage
may reduce upload/transit/backbone traffic and improve network may reduce upload/transit/backbone traffic and improve network
application performance. application performance. The position of in-network storage is in
the core of a network, for example, co-located with the border
router (network attached storage) or inside a data center.
P2P cache (Peer to Peer cache): A kind of in-network storage that P2P cache (Peer to Peer cache): A kind of in-network storage that
understands the signaling and transport of specific P2P understands the signaling and transport of specific P2P
application protocols. It caches the content for those specific application protocols. It caches the content for those specific
P2P applications in order to serve peers and reduce traffic on P2P applications in order to serve peers and reduce traffic on
certain links. certain links.
3. The Problems 3. The Problems
The emergence of peer-to-peer (P2P) as a major network application The emergence of peer-to-peer (P2P) as a major network application
(especially P2P file sharing and streaming) has led to substantial (especially P2P file sharing and streaming) has led to substantial
opportunities. The P2P paradigm can be utilized to design highly opportunities. The P2P paradigm can be utilized to design highly
scalable and robust applications at low cost, compared to the scalable and robust applications at low cost, compared to the
traditional client-server paradigm. For example, CNN reported that traditional client-server paradigm.
P2P streaming by Octoshape played a major role in its distribution of
the historic inauguration address of President Obama[Octoshape].
PPLive, one of the largest P2P streaming vendors, is able to
distribute large-scale, live streaming programs to more than 2
million users with only a handful of servers [PPLive].
However, P2P applications also face substantial design challenges. A However, P2P applications also face substantial design challenges. A
particular problem facing P2P applications is the additional stress particular problem facing P2P applications is the additional stress
that they place on the network infrastructure. Furthermore, lack of that they place on the network infrastructure. Furthermore, lack of
infrastructure support can lead to unstable P2P application infrastructure support can lead to unstable P2P application
performance during peer churns and flash crowds, when a large group performance during peer churns and flash crowds, when a large group
of users begin to retrieve the content during a short period of time. of users begin to retrieve the content during a short period of time.
A potential way to solve it would be to make it possible for peers
that were on bandwidth constrained access to put things in a place
that is both not bandwidth constrained and accessible by other peers.
These problems are now discussed in further detail. These problems are now discussed in further detail.
3.1. P2P infrastructural stress and inefficiency 3.1. P2P infrastructural stress and inefficiency
A particular problem of the P2P paradigm is the stress that P2P A particular problem of the P2P paradigm is the stress that P2P
application traffic places on the infrastructure of Internet service application traffic places on the infrastructure of Internet service
providers (ISPs). Multiple measurements (e.g., [Internet Study 2008/ providers (ISPs). Multiple measurements (e.g.,
2009][Internet_Study_2008-2009]) have shown that P2P traffic has [Internet_Study_2008-2009]) have shown that P2P traffic has become a
become a major type of traffic on some networks. Furthermore, the major type of traffic on some networks. Furthermore, the
inefficiency of network-agnostic peering (at the P2P transmission inefficiency of network-agnostic peering (at the P2P transmission
level) leads to unnecessary traversal across network domains or level) leads to unnecessary traversal across network domains or
spanning the backbone of a network [RFC5693]. spanning the backbone of a network [RFC5693].
Using network information alone to construct more efficient P2P Using network information alone to construct more efficient P2P
swarms is not sufficient to reduce P2P traffic in access networks, as swarms is not sufficient to reduce P2P traffic in access networks, as
the total access upload traffic is equal to the total access download the total access upload traffic is equal to the total access download
traffic in a traditional P2P system. On the other hand, it is traffic in a traditional P2P system. On the other hand, it is
reported that P2P traffic is becoming the dominant traffic on the reported that P2P traffic is becoming the dominant traffic on the
access networks of some networks, reaching as high as 50-60% on the access networks of some networks, reaching as high as 50-60% on the
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
many times as there are remote peers interested in getting the many times as there are remote peers interested in getting the
corresponding information. For example, the P2P application transfer corresponding information. For example, the P2P application transfer
completion times remain affected by potentially (relatively) slow completion times remain affected by potentially (relatively) slow
upstream transmission. Similarly, the performance of real-time P2P upstream transmission. Similarly, the performance of real-time P2P
applications may be affected by potentially (relatively) higher applications may be affected by potentially (relatively) higher
upstream latencies. upstream latencies.
3.2. P2P cache: a complex in-network storage 3.2. P2P cache: a complex in-network storage
An effective technique to reduce P2P infrastructural stress and An effective technique to reduce P2P infrastructural stress and
inefficiency is to introduce in-network storage. inefficiency is to introduce in-network storage. The existing in-
network storage systems can be found in [RFC6392].
In the current Internet, in-network storage is introduced as P2P In the current Internet, in-network storage is introduced as P2P
caches, either transparently or explicitly as a P2P peer. To provide caches, either transparently or explicitly as a P2P peer. To provide
service to a specific P2P application, the P2P cache server must service to a specific P2P application, the P2P cache server must
support the specific signaling and transport protocols of the support the specific signaling and transport protocols of the
specific P2P application. This can lead to substantial complexity specific P2P application. This can lead to substantial complexity
for the P2P Cache vendor. for the P2P Cache vendor.
First, there are many P2P applications on the Internet (e.g., First, there are many P2P applications on the Internet (e.g.,
BitTorrent, eMule, Flashget, and Thunder for file sharing; Abacast, BitTorrent, eMule, Flashget, and Thunder for file sharing; Abacast,
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 50
Consequently, a P2P cache vendor faces the challenge of supporting a Consequently, a P2P cache vendor faces the challenge of supporting a
large number of P2P application protocols, leading to product large number of P2P application protocols, leading to product
complexity and increased development cost. complexity and increased development cost.
Furthermore, a specific P2P application protocol may evolve Furthermore, a specific P2P application protocol may evolve
continuously, to add new features or fix bugs. This forces a P2P continuously, to add new features or fix bugs. This forces a P2P
cache vendor to continuously update to track the changes of the P2P cache vendor to continuously update to track the changes of the P2P
application, leading to product complexity and increased costs. application, leading to product complexity and increased costs.
Third, many P2P applications use proprietary protocols or support Third, many P2P applications use proprietary protocols or support
end-to-end encryption. This can render P2P caches ineffective. end-to-end encryption. This can render P2P caches ineffective. So
these three problems make the P2P cache as a network middle-box, hard
to support these P2P application distribution in their own ways.
Finally, a P2P cache is likely to be much better connected to end Finally, a P2P cache is likely to be much better connected to end
hosts than to remote peers. Without the ability to manage bandwidth hosts than remote peers that connected to end hosts. Without the
usage, the P2P cache may increase the volume of download traffic, ability to manage bandwidth usage, the P2P cache may increase the
which runs counter to the reduction of upload access traffic. volume of download traffic, which runs counter to the reduction of
upload access traffic.
3.3. Ineffective integration of P2P applications 3.3. Ineffective integration of P2P applications
As P2P applications evolve, it has become increasingly clear that As P2P applications evolve, it has become increasingly clear that
usage of in-network resources can improve user experience. For usage of in-network resources can improve user experience. For
example, multiple P2P streaming systems seek additional in-network example, multiple P2P streaming systems seek additional in-network
resources during a flash crowd, such as just before a major live resources during a flash crowd, such as just before a major live
streaming event. In asymmetric networks when the aggregated upload streaming event. In asymmetric networks when the aggregated upload
bandwidth of a channel cannot meet the download demand, a P2P bandwidth of a channel cannot meet the download demand, a P2P
application may seek additional in-network resources to maintain a application may seek additional in-network resources to maintain a
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
To permit developers to evolve and fine-tune their algorithms and To permit developers to evolve and fine-tune their algorithms and
policies, the in-network storage should expose basic mechanisms and policies, the in-network storage should expose basic mechanisms and
allow as much flexibility as possible to P2P applications. This allow as much flexibility as possible to P2P applications. This
conforms to the end-to-end systems principle and allows innovation conforms to the end-to-end systems principle and allows innovation
and satisfaction of specific business goals. Existing techniques for and satisfaction of specific business goals. Existing techniques for
P2P application in-network storage lack these capabilities. P2P application in-network storage lack these capabilities.
4. Usage Scenarios 4. Usage Scenarios
Usage scenarios are presented to illustrate the problems in both CDN Usage scenarios are presented to illustrate the problems in both
and P2P scenarios. Content Distribution Network (CDN) and P2P scenarios.
4.1. BitTorrent 4.1. BitTorrent
When a BitTorrent client A uploads a block to multiple peers, the When a BitTorrent client A uploads a block to multiple peers, the
block traverses the last-mile uplink once for each peer. And after block traverses the last-mile uplink once for each peer. And after
that, the peer B who just received the block from A also needs to that, the peer B who just received the block from A also needs to
upload through its own last-mile uplink to others when sharing this upload through its own last-mile uplink to others when sharing this
block. This is not an efficient use of the last-mile uplink. With block. This is not an efficient use of the last-mile uplink. With
in-network storage server however, the BitTorrent client may upload in-network storage server however, the BitTorrent client may upload
the block to its in-network storage. Peers may retrieve the block the block to its in-network storage. Peers may retrieve the block
from the in-network storage, reducing the amount of data on the last- from the in-network storage, reducing the amount of data on the last-
mile uplink. If supported by the in-network storage, a peer can also mile uplink. If supported by the in-network storage, a peer can also
save the block in its own in-network storage while it is being save the block in its own in-network storage while it is being
retrieved; the block can then be uploaded from the in-network storage retrieved; the block can then be uploaded from the in-network storage
to other peers. to other peers.
As previously discussed, BitTorrent or other P2P applications As previously discussed, BitTorrent or other P2P applications
currently cannot explicitly manage which content is placed in the currently cannot explicitly manage which content is placed in the
existing P2P caches, nor can they manage access and resource control existing P2P caches, nor access and resource control polices.
polices. Applications need to retain flexibility to control the Applications need to retain flexibility to control the content
content distribution policies and topology among peers. distribution policies and topology among peers.
4.2. Content Publisher 4.2. Content Publisher
Content publishers may also utilize in-network storage. For example, Content publishers may also utilize in-network storage. For example,
consider a P2P live streaming application. A Content Publisher consider a P2P live streaming application. A Content Publisher
typically maintains a small number of sources, each of which typically maintains a small number of sources, each of which
distributes blocks in the current play buffer to a set of the P2P distributes blocks in the current play buffer to a set of the P2P
peers. peers.
Some content publishers use another hybrid content distribution Some content publishers use another hybrid content distribution
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 8, line 34
up barriers for content distribution. up barriers for content distribution.
5.2. Copyright and Legal Issues 5.2. Copyright and Legal Issues
Copyright and other laws may prevent the distribution of certain Copyright and other laws may prevent the distribution of certain
content in various localities. In-network storage operators may content in various localities. In-network storage operators may
adopt system-wide ingress or egress filters to implement necessary adopt system-wide ingress or egress filters to implement necessary
policies for storing or retrieving content, and applications may policies for storing or retrieving content, and applications may
apply DRM to the data stored in the network storage. However, the apply DRM to the data stored in the network storage. However, the
specification and implementation of such policies (e.g., filtering specification and implementation of such policies (e.g., filtering
and DRM) is outside of the scope of this document. and DRM) is not in scope for the problem this document proposes
solving.
5.3. Traffic Analysis 5.3. Traffic Analysis
If the content is stored in the provider-based in-network storage, If the content is stored in the provider-based in-network storage,
there may be a privacy risk that the provider can correlate the there may be a privacy risk that the provider can correlate the
people who are accessing the same data object using the same object people who are accessing the same data object using the same object
identity. identity. This correlation can be used to presume that they have the
same interest, so as to use it as a basis for a phishing attack.
5.4. Modification of Information 5.4. Modification of Information
The modification threat is the danger that some unauthorized entity The modification threat is the danger that some unauthorized entity
may alter in-transit in-network storage access messages generated on may alter in-transit in-network storage access messages generated on
behalf of an authorized principal in such a way as to effect behalf of an authorized principal in such a way as to effect
unauthorized management operations, including falsifying the value of unauthorized management operations, including falsifying the value of
an object. See [RFC3414]. an object. This threat may result in false data being supplied
either through the data on a legitimate store being modified, or
through a bogus store being introduced into the network.
5.5. Masquerade 5.5. Masquerade
The masquerade threat is the danger that management operations may be A type of threat action whereby an unauthorized entity gains access
attempted by assuming the identity of another user that has the to a system or performs a malicious act by illegitimately posing as
appropriate authorizations. See [RFC3414]. an authorized entity. In the context of this spec, when accessing
in-network storage, one malicious end host can try to act as another
authorized end host or application server to access a protected
resource in the in-network storage.
5.6. Disclosure 5.6. Disclosure
The disclosure threat is the danger of eavesdropping on the exchanges The disclosure threat is the danger of eavesdropping on the exchanges
between in-network storage and application clients. Protecting between in-network storage and application clients. Protecting
against this threat may be required as a matter of application against this threat may be required as a matter of application
policy. See [RFC3414]. policy.
5.7. Message Stream Modification 5.7. Message Stream Modification
The message stream modification threat is the danger that messages The message stream modification threat is the danger that messages
may be maliciously re-ordered, delayed or replayed to an extent which may be maliciously re-ordered, delayed or replayed to an extent which
is greater than can occur through natural network system, in order to is greater than can occur through natural network system, in order to
effect unauthorized management operations. See [RFC3414]. effect unauthorized management operations to in-network storage. If
the middle box, such like NAT (network address translator) or proxy
between an end host and in-network storage is compromised, it is easy
to do the stream modification attack.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document. There are no IANA considerations in this document.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for contributing to this We would like to thank the following people for contributing to this
document: document:
David Bryan David Bryan
Ronald Bonica
Kar Ann Chew Kar Ann Chew
Roni Even Roni Even
Lars Eggert Lars Eggert
Francois Le Faucheur
Adrian Farrel
Yingjie Gu Yingjie Gu
Francois Le Faucheur David Harrington
Leif Johansson
Hongqiang Liu Hongqiang Liu
Tao Ma Tao Ma
Borje Ohlman Borje Ohlman
Akbar Rahman Akbar Rahman
Robert Sparks
Peter Saint-Andre
Sean Turner
Yu-shun Wang Yu-shun Wang
Richard Woundy Richard Woundy
Yunfei Zhang Yunfei Zhang
8. Informative References 8. Informative References
[Internet_Study_2008-2009] [Internet_Study_2008-2009]
"Internet Study 2008/2009", <http://www.ipoque.com/ "Internet Study 2008/2009", <http://www.ipoque.com/
resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2008_2009>. resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2008_2009>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 14 skipping to change at page 10, line 42
Richard Woundy Richard Woundy
Yunfei Zhang Yunfei Zhang
8. Informative References 8. Informative References
[Internet_Study_2008-2009] [Internet_Study_2008-2009]
"Internet Study 2008/2009", <http://www.ipoque.com/ "Internet Study 2008/2009", <http://www.ipoque.com/
resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2008_2009>. resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2008_2009>.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.
[RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic [RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693, Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693,
October 2009. October 2009.
[RFC6392] Alimi, R., Rahman, A., and Y. Yang, "A Survey of In-
Network Storage Systems", RFC 6392, October 2011.
[Data_Lockers]
Yang, Y., "Open Content Distribution using Data Lockers",
<http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/yry/projects/p4p/
open-data-lockers-nov-2010-coxnet.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]
Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and
H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-20 (work in Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-21 (work in
progress), January 2012. progress), March 2012.
[DCIA] http://www.dcia.info, "Distributed Computing Industry [DCIA] http://www.dcia.info, "Distributed Computing Industry
Association". Association".
[ipoque.P2P_survey.] [ipoque.P2P_survey.]
"Emerging Technologies Conference at MIT", Sept. 2007. "Emerging Technologies Conference at MIT", Sept. 2007.
[P2P_file_sharing] [P2P_file_sharing]
Parker, A., "The true picture of peer-to-peer Parker, A., "The true picture of peer-to-peer
filesharing", July 2004. filesharing", July 2004.
skipping to change at page 11, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
the current P2P related work in IETF and the relationship with DECADE the current P2P related work in IETF and the relationship with DECADE
WG.) WG.)
Note that DECADE WG's work is independent of current IETF work on Note that DECADE WG's work is independent of current IETF work on
P2P. The ALTO work is aimed for better peer selection and the RELOAD P2P. The ALTO work is aimed for better peer selection and the RELOAD
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] protocol is used for P2P overlay maintenance [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] protocol is used for P2P overlay maintenance
and resource discovery. and resource discovery.
The Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol effort in the IETF is The Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol effort in the IETF is
investigating the specification of signaling protocols (called the investigating the specification of signaling protocols (called the
PPSP tracker protocol and peer protocol) for multiple entities (e.g. PPSP tracker protocol and peer protocol) for multiple entities (e.g.,
intelligent endpoints, caches, content distribution network nodes, intelligent endpoints, caches, content distribution network nodes,
and/or other edge devices) to participate in P2P streaming systems in and/or other edge devices) to participate in P2P streaming systems in
both fixed and mobile Internet. As discussed in the PPSP problem both fixed and mobile Internet. As discussed in the PPSP problem
statement, one important PPSP use case is the support of an in- statement, one important PPSP use case is the support of an in-
network edge cache for P2P Streaming. However, this approach to network edge cache for P2P Streaming. However, this approach to
providing in-network cache has different applicability, different providing in-network cache has different applicability, different
objectives and different implications for the in-network cache objectives and different implications for the in-network cache
operator. The goal of DECADE WG is to provide in-network storage operator. The goal of DECADE WG is to provide in-network storage
service that can be used for any application transparently to the in- service that can be used for any application transparently to the in-
network storage operator: it can be used for any P2P Streaming network storage operator: it can be used for any P2P Streaming
skipping to change at page 11, line 39 skipping to change at page 12, line 23
providing a generic in-network storage service that can be used by providing a generic in-network storage service that can be used by
any application without application involvement or awareness by the any application without application involvement or awareness by the
operator; in the PPSP cache use case, the cache operator is operator; in the PPSP cache use case, the cache operator is
participating in the specific P2P streaming service. participating in the specific P2P streaming service.
DECADE and PPSP can both contribute independently, and (where DECADE and PPSP can both contribute independently, and (where
appropriate) simultaneously, to making content available closer to appropriate) simultaneously, to making content available closer to
peers. Here are a number of example scenarios: peers. Here are a number of example scenarios:
A given network supports DECADE in-network storage, and its CDN A given network supports DECADE in-network storage, and its CDN
nodes do not participate as PPSP Peers for a given "stream" (e.g. nodes do not participate as PPSP Peers for a given "stream" (e.g.,
because no CDN arrangement has been put in place between the because no CDN arrangement has been put in place between the
content provider and the particular network provider). In that content provider and the particular network provider). In that
case, PPSP Peers will all be "off-net" but will be able to use case, PPSP Peers will all be "off-net" but will be able to use
DECADE in-network storage to exchange chunks. DECADE in-network storage to exchange chunks.
A given network does not support DECADE in-network storage, and A given network does not support DECADE in-network storage, and
(some of) its CDN nodes participate as PPSP Peers for a given (some of) its CDN nodes participate as PPSP Peers for a given
"stream" (e.g. say because an arrangement has been put in place "stream" (e.g., say because an arrangement has been put in place
between the content provider and the particular network provider). between the content provider and the particular network provider).
In that case, the CDN nodes will participate as in-network PPSP In that case, the CDN nodes will participate as in-network PPSP
Peers. The off-net PPSP Peers (i.e., end users) will be able to Peers. The off-net PPSP Peers (i.e., end users) will be able to
get chunks from the in-network CDN nodes (using PPSP protocols get chunks from the in-network CDN nodes (using PPSP protocols
with the CDN nodes). with the CDN nodes).
A given network supports DECADE in-network storage, and (some of) A given network supports DECADE in-network storage, and (some of)
its CDN nodes participate as PPSP Peers for a given "stream" (e.g. its CDN nodes participate as PPSP Peers for a given "stream"
because an arrangement has been put in place between the content (e.g., because an arrangement has been put in place between the
provider and the particular network provider). In that case, the content provider and the particular network provider). In that
CDN nodes will participate as in-network PPSP Peers. The off-net case, the CDN nodes will participate as in-network PPSP Peers.
PPSP Peers (i.e., end users) will be able to get chunks from the The off-net PPSP Peers (i.e., end users) will be able to get
in-network CDN nodes (using PPSP protocols with the CDN nodes) as chunks from the in-network CDN nodes (using PPSP protocols with
well as be able to get chunks / share chunks using DECADE in- the CDN nodes) as well as be able to get chunks / share chunks
network storage populated by PPSP Peers (both off-net end-users using DECADE in-network storage populated by PPSP Peers (both off-
and in-network CDN Nodes). net end-users and in-network CDN Nodes).
PPSP and DECADE jointly provide P2P streaming service for PPSP and DECADE jointly provide P2P streaming service for
heterogeneous networks including both fixed and mobile connections heterogeneous networks including both fixed and mobile connections
and enables the mobile nodes to use DECADE. In this case there and enables the mobile nodes to use DECADE. In this case there
may be some solutions that require more information in PPSP may be some solutions that require more information in PPSP
tracker protocol, e.g., the mobile node can indicate its DECADE tracker protocol, e.g., the mobile node can indicate its DECADE
in-network proxy to the PPSP tracker and the following requesting in-network proxy to the PPSP tracker and the following requesting
peer can finish data transfer with the DECADE proxy. peer can finish data transfer with the DECADE proxy.
An ALTO (Application Layer Traffic Optimization) server provides P2P An ALTO (Application Layer Traffic Optimization) server provides P2P
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 92 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/