Skip to main content

TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live Streaming to Mass Audiences
draft-giuliano-treedn-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Author Lenny Giuliano
Last updated 2022-09-07
Replaced by draft-ietf-mops-treedn
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-giuliano-treedn-00
mboned                                                       L. Giuliano
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Informational                          7 September 2022
Expires: 11 March 2023

      TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live Streaming to Mass Audiences
                        draft-giuliano-treedn-00

Abstract

   As Internet audience sizes for high-interest live events reach
   unprecedented levels and bitrates climb to support 4K/8K/AR, live
   streaming can place a unique type of stress upon network resources.
   TreeDN is a tree-based CDN architecture designed to address the
   distinctive scaling challenges of live streaming to mass audiences.
   TreeDN enables operators to offer Replication-as-a-Service (RaaS) at
   a fraction the cost of traditional, unicast-based CDNs- in some
   cases, at no additional cost to the infrastructure.  In addition to
   efficiently utilizing network resources to deliver existing multi-
   destination traffic, this architecture also enables new types of
   content and use cases that previously weren't possible or
   economically viable using traditional CDN approaches.  Finally,
   TreeDN is a decentralized architecture and a democratizing technology
   for content distribution.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 March 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  TreeDN Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  TreeDN Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  TreeDN Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Replication-as-a-Service (RaaS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Decentralization/Democratization of Content Sourcing  . . . .   6
   7.  Integration with Unicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Live streaming to mass audiences can impose unique demands on network
   resources.  For example, live sporting events broadcast over the
   Internet to end users has much lower tolerance for long playout
   buffers than typical on-demand video streaming.  Viewers of live
   sporting events have long been conditioned by broadcast television to
   expect to see the content in real time, with only very short buffers
   for broadcast delays to prevent profanity and other objectionable
   content from making on the air (the "seven-second delay").  With in-
   game betting, even this 5-10 second delay can be too long.  By
   comparison, when watching on-demand movies, an extra one- or two-
   minute playout buffer tends to be perfectly acceptable for viewers.
   If playout buffers for live sports are that long, viewers run the
   risk of being alerted to the game winning score from text messages
   from friends or cheers from the bar across the street, minutes before
   they view it themselves.

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

   Another unique characteristic of live streaming is join rate.  While
   on-demand video streaming can consume massive amounts of network
   resources, the viewing rates tend to be smooth and predictable.
   Service Providers observe gradual levels of traffic increases over
   the evening hours corresponding to prime-time viewing habits.  By
   comparison, viewing rates of live video streams can more closely
   resemble step functions with much less predictability as mass
   audiences of viewers tune in to watch the game at the same time.

   Previous efforts at more efficient network replication of multi-
   destination traffic have experienced mixed success in terms of
   adoption.  IP multicast is widely deployed on financial networks,
   video distribution networks, L3VPN networks and certain enterprises.
   But most of these deployments are restricted to "walled-garden"
   networks.  Multicast over the global Internet has failed to gain
   traction, as only a very small portion of the Internet is multicast-
   enabled at this time.

   TreeDN is the result of the evolution of network-based replication
   mechanisms based on lessons learned from what has and has not worked
   well in the past.  TreeDN addresses the fundamental issues of what
   has hindered multicast from adoption on the global Internet and
   enables service providers the opportunity to deliver new Replication-
   as-a-Service (RaaS) offerings to content providers, while more
   efficiently utilizing network resources, and thus, improving the
   experience of end users.  Further, by more efficiently supporting
   multi-destination traffic, TreeDN is an architecture that can enable
   new types of content, such as Augmented Reality (AR) live streaming
   to mass audiences, that previously weren't possible or economically
   viable on the Internet due to the inefficiencies of unicast.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Applicability

   While the primary use case mentioned throughout this document is live
   streaming of multimedia content (audio, video, AR, real-time
   telemetry data), the TreeDN architecture is ideal for any content
   that needs to be replicated and delivered to multiple destinations.
   For example, large software file updates (eg, OS upgrades) that need
   to be delivered to many end users in a very short window of time can
   cause significant strain on network resources.  Using TreeDN, this

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

   use case be handled much more efficiently by the network.

3.  Problem Statement

   The following issues have been the primary challenges for deployment
   of IP multicast over the global Internet:

   *  The "All or Nothing" Problem: IP multicast requires every layer 3
      hop between source and receivers to be multicast-enabled.  To
      achieve ubiquitous availability on the global Internet, this
      essentially means nearly every interface on every router and
      firewall on the Internet must support a multicast routing protocol
      like PIM-SM [RFC7761] or mLDP [RFC6388].  This requirement creates
      a bar to deployment that is practically impossible to overcome.

   *  The "It's Too Complex" Problem: operators have long complained
      that multicast routing protocols like PIM-SM are simply too
      complex, making it costly to design, configure, manage and
      troubleshoot IP multicast in the network.

   *  The "Chicken and Egg" Problem: there's not much multicast content
      because there's not much of a multicast-enabled audience, but
      there's not much of a multicast-enabled audience because there's
      not much multicast content.

   TreeDN is the evolution of network-based replication based on lessons
   learned over decades and is designed to address the problems listed
   above.

4.  TreeDN Architecture

   TreeDN leverages advances in the availability and understanding of
   overlay and underlay networking.  With network overlays, a service
   can be achieved and delivered to end users while recognizing and
   tolerating the practical realities of what is possible over a network
   as diverse as the global Internet.  That is, the replication service
   is available to users and applications regardless of what protocols
   may exist in the underlying networks.

4.1.  TreeDN Overlays

   One overlay technology that TreeDN leverages is Automatic Multicast
   Tunneling (AMT) [RFC7450].  With AMT, users on unicast-only networks
   can dynamically build tunnels to routers on the multicast-enabled
   part of the network and join multicast streams.  This allows any end
   host on the Internet to receive multicast content regardless of
   whether their local provider supports multicast, which addresses the
   "All or Nothing" Problem.  Links and devices that do not support

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

   multicast are simply tunneled over- they no longer present a barrier
   to the overall replication service for end users.  Those networks
   that do deploy and support multicast, as well as the content
   providers that serve up multicast content, are able to enjoy the
   benefits of efficient replication and delivery.  Further, these
   benefits can serve as incentives for operators who do not yet support
   multicast to enable it on their networks.  Once the cost of carrying
   duplicated unicast tunnels is perceived by those operators to exceed
   the cost of deploying multicast, they are more likely to enable
   multicast on their networks.  In this way, TreeDN effectively
   supports incremental deployment in a way that was not previously
   possible with traditional (non-overlay) multicast networking.
   Finally, AMT also addresses the "Chicken and Egg" Problem, as all end
   hosts on the global Internet that have access to an AMT Relay are
   potential audience members.

   In addition to AMT, other overlay technologies like Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] can be utilized to deliver
   content from multicast-enabled networks to end hosts that are
   separated by portions of the network (at the last/middle/first mile)
   that do not support multicast.

4.2.  TreeDN Underlay

   Networks that support multicast provide the "underlay" component of
   TreeDN.  The primary requirement of the underlay is to support
   Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) [RFC4607].  PIM-SSM, which is merely
   a subset of PIM-SM, is the multicast routing protocol typically used
   in SSM.  However, any multicast routing protocol capable of
   supporting SSM can be used as a TreeDN underlay, such as mLDP, GTM
   [RFC7716] and BGP-based Multicast [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].
   Likewise, any data plane technology that supports SSM, including BIER
   [RFC8279], can be used.

   The key benefit of SSM as the underlay component of TreeDN is that it
   radically simplifies the control plane needed to support replication
   in the network.  This benefit addresses the "It's Too Complex"
   Problem.  Most of the complexity of multicast is eliminated in SSM,
   which reduces the cost of deploying and operating a multicast
   network.  Further rationale for this SSM-only approach can be found
   in ASM Deprecation [RFC8815].

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

5.  Replication-as-a-Service (RaaS)

   Content providers have traditionally used CDNs to distribute content
   that needs to be delivered to large audiences, essentially
   outsourcing the task of replication to CDN providers.  Most CDNs
   utilize unicast delivery, as multicast is not an option due to its
   lack of general availability on the global Internet.  TreeDN is an
   alternate CDN architecture that leverages tree-based replication to
   more efficiently utilize network resources to deliver multi-
   destination traffic.  By leveraging overlay networking to address the
   "All or Nothing" and "Chicken and Egg" Problems and SSM to address
   the "It's Too Complex" Problem, TreeDN avoids the practical issues
   that previously prevented multicast from being a viable option for
   CDN providers.

   TreeDN has several advantages over traditional unicast-based CDN
   approaches.  First, the TreeDN functionality can be delivered
   entirely by the existing network infrastructure.  Specifically, for
   operators with routers that support AMT natively, multicast traffic
   can be delivered directly to end users without the need for
   specialized CDN devices, which typically are servers that need to be
   racked, powered and connected to revenue-generating ports on routers.
   In this way, SPs can offer new RaaS functionality to content
   providers at potentially zero additional cost in new equipment
   (modulo the additional bandwidth consumption).

   Additionally, TreeDN is an open, standards-based architecture based
   on mature, widely implemented protocols.  TreeDN also requires far
   less coordination between the content provider and the CDN operator.
   That is, there are no storage requirements for the data, nor group-
   key management issues since a TreeDN provider merely forwards
   packets.  A TreeDN provider simply needs to have enough accounting
   data (eg, traffic data, number of AMT tunnels, etc) to properly bill
   customers for the service.  By contrast, traditional unicast-based
   CDNs often incorporate proprietary, non-interoperable technologies
   and require significant coordination between the content provider and
   the CDN to handle such things as file storage, data protection and
   key-management.

6.  Decentralization/Democratization of Content Sourcing

   TreeDN is an inherently decentralized architecture.  This reduces the
   cost for content sourcing, as any host connected to a multicast-
   enabled network, or on a source-capable overlay, can send out a
   single data stream that can be reached by an arbitrarily large
   audience.  By effectively reducing to zero the marginal cost to the
   source of reaching each additional audience member, TreeDN
   democratizes content sourcing on the Internet.

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

7.  Integration with Unicast

   Since SSM inherently implies unidirectional traffic flows from one to
   many, mechanisms that rely on bidirectional communication between
   receivers and the content provider, such as bespoke advertising,
   telemetry data from receivers detailing end user experience,
   distribution of decryption keys, switching to higher/lower bandwidth
   streams, etc, are not well suited to SSM delivery.  As such, separate
   unicast streams between receivers and content providers may be used
   for this type of "out-of-band" functions while SSM is used to deliver
   the actual content of interest.  Further details on this hybrid
   unicast-multicast model for content delivery are beyond the scope of
   this document.

8.  Security Consideration

   TreeDN is essentially the synthesis of SSM plus overlay networking
   technologies like AMT.  As such, the TreeDN architecture introduces
   no new security threats that aren't already documented in SSM and the
   overlay technologies that comprise it.  Further, RFC 4609 and RFC
   8815 describes the additional security benefits of using SSM instead
   of ASM.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to those who have contributed to building and operating
   the first TreeDN network on the Internet, including Pete Morasca,
   William Zhang, Lauren Delwiche, Natalie Landsberg, Wayne Brassem,
   Jake Holland, Andrew Gallo, Casey Russell, Janus Varmarken, Csaba
   Mate, Frederic Loui, Max Franke, Todor Moskov and Erik Herz.  The
   writing of this document to describe the TreeDN architecture was
   inspired by a conversation with Dino Farinacci and Mike McBride.
   Thanks also to Jeff Haas for his thoughtful review and suggestions.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast]
              Zhang, Z., Giuliano, L., Patel, K., Wijnands, I., Mishra,
              M., and A. Gulko, "BGP Based Multicast", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-04, 7
              January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
              bess-bgp-multicast-04.txt>.

   [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
              IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
              Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
              to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

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

   [RFC7716]  Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K.,
              and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast
              VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>.

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

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   TreeDN                   September 2022

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8815]  Abrahamsson, M., Chown, T., Giuliano, L., and T. Eckert,
              "Deprecating Any-Source Multicast (ASM) for Interdomain
              Multicast", BCP 229, RFC 8815, DOI 10.17487/RFC8815,
              August 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8815>.

Author's Address

   Lenny Giuliano
   Juniper Networks
   2251 Corporate Park Drive
   Herndon,  20171
   United States of America
   Email: lenny@juniper.net

Giuliano                  Expires 11 March 2023                 [Page 9]