Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (mboned WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Percy Tarapore , Robert Sayko , Greg Shepherd , Toerless Eckert , Ramki Krishnan | ||
| Last updated | 2013-10-09 (Latest revision 2013-07-15) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-03
MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft Robert Sayko
Intended status: BCP AT&T
Expires: January 15, 2014 Greg Shepherd
Toerless Eckert
Cisco
Ram Krishnan
Brocade
July 15, 2013
Multicasting Applications Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-tarapore-mboned-multicast-cdni-03.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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 1]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
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.
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...................................................2
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport.......3
3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast..........4
3.1. Native Multicast..........................................4
3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel.....................6
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
Enabled........................................................7
3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast
Enabled........................................................9
4. Supporting Functionality......................................11
4.1. Network Transport and Security Guidelines................11
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................11
4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines...11
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines12
4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines..........12
4.6. Provisioning Guidelines..................................12
4.7. Client Models............................................12
4.8. Addressing Guidelines....................................12
5. Security Considerations.......................................12
6. IANA Considerations...........................................12
7. Conclusions...................................................13
8. References....................................................13
8.1. Normative References.....................................13
8.2. Informative References...................................13
9. Acknowledgments...............................................13
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
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 2]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
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 several multicast protocols 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 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.
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.
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 3]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
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.
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.
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 4]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \
/ \ / \
| +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+
| | CS |------>| BR |-|---------|->| BR |-------------|-->| EU |
| | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
CS = 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:
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 Requirements for this Configuration:
R3.1-1: Peering points between domains shall be at least dual homed
for reliability with full BGP table visibility.
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 5]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
R3.1-2: If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled
network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly by
AD-1 and AD-2 to permit the transit of non rate-adaptive multicast
traffic, otherwise the multicast traffic should support rate-
adaptation.
R3.1-3: Each domain AD-1, AD-2 determines by local policy whether to
permit sending and/or receiving of IP multicast traffic from the
other domain. If AD-1 is for example a service provider and AD-2 an
enterprise, then AD-1 may often only support traffic delivery to,
but not traffic reception from AD-2.
R3.1-4: Relevant information on the multicast streams delivered to
End Users in AD-2 shall be collected at the application layer. The
precise nature of the collected information will be driven by
requirements set down by the source owner and the domain operators.
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:
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 6]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
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 Requirements for this Configuration:
R3.2-1 through R3.2-4 are the same as requirements R.3.1-1 through
R.3.1-4 defined in Use Case 3.1.
R3.2-5: GRE tunnels will be manually configured at peering points to
support multicast delivery between domains.
R3.1-6 The GRE tunnel (tunnel server) in source network must be
configured to only advertise the routes to the Content Sources (not
the entire network). Otherwise content that should not be in tunnel
may go through tunnel (e.g. content not part of an agreed CDN
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.
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 7]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \
/ \ / \
| +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+
| | CS |------>| AR |-|---------|->| AG |-------------|-->| EU |
| | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
AR = AMT Relay
AG = AMT Gateway
I1 = AMT Interconnection between P-CDN and S-CDN
I2 = S-CDN and EU Multicast Connection
Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
Advantages of this configuration:
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.
o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following:
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies.
Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router
technology cannot count the number of end users or the number
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.
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 8]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
Architectural Requirements for this Configuration:
R3.3-1 through R3.3-4 are the same as requirements R.3.1-1 through
R.3.1-4 defined in Use Case 3.1.
R3.3-5: AMT Relay and Gateway pair needs to be established at
peering points to support multicast delivery between domains. The
AMT tunnel will then configure dynamically across the peering point
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.
------------------- -------------------
/ P-CDN \ / S-CDN \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | | +----+
| | CS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
(Note: Diff-marks for the figure have been removed to improve
viewing)
CS = Content 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
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 9]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the
data usage associated with each End User.
Advantages of this configuration:
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.
o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following:
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies.
o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also
able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU.
Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced
into the transport path.
o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU
Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-
1.
Architectural Requirements for this Configuration:
R3.4-1 through R3.4-3 are the same as requirements R.3.1-1 through
R.3.1-3 defined in Use Case 3.1.
R3.4-4: Proper procedures shall exist to enable the AMT Gateway at
End User device to find the correct AMT Relay in AD-1 across the
peering points. At a minimum, the application client in the EU
device will supply the (S,G) information to the Gateway for this
purpose.
R3.3-5: Relevant information on the multicast streams delivered to
End Users in AD-2 via AMT tunnels shall be collected by the tunnels
per existing AMT capabilities.
A variation of this Use Case can be constructed as follows:
o Single AMT tunnel across peering point.
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 10]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
o Strategic location of AMT Gateways at Exit Routers in AD-2 and
an AMT Relay at AD-2 side of Peering Point. This reduces the
total number of unicast streams across AD-2 equal to the total
number of exit routers in AD-2.
o Co-Location of AMT Relays with the AMT Gateways at the Exit
Routers. This permits the AMT Gateway at the End User device
application client to establish a shorter AMT tunnel with the
AMT Relay at the appropriate Exit Router.
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. The negative aspect is that several AMT
tunnels will need to dynamically configure by the various AMT
Gateways based solely on the (S,G) information received from the
application client at the EU device.
The requirements for this scenario are the same as the simpler case
defined in this section. Only the dynamic configurations will become
more complicated for setting up the correct set of tunnel chains.
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.
4.1. Network Transport and Security Guidelines
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines
4.3. Back Office Functions - Billing and Logging Guidelines
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 11]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines
4.5. Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines
4.6. Provisioning Guidelines
In order to find right relay there is a need for a small/light
implementation of an AMT DNS in source network.
4.7. Client Models
4.8. Addressing Guidelines
5. Security Considerations
(Include discussion on DRM, AAA, Network Security)
6. IANA Considerations
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 12]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
7. Conclusions
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
9. Acknowledgments
Tarapore, et al Expires January 15, 2014 [Page 13]
IETF I-D Multicasting Applications Across Peering Points July 2013
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 January 15, 2014 [Page 14]