Multicast/BIER As A Service
draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-10-22
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
BIER                                                            Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                                  E. Rosen
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: April 25, 2019                                          L. Geng
                                                            China Mobile
                                                        October 22, 2018

                      Multicast/BIER As A Service
              draft-zzhang-bier-multicast-as-a-service-00

Abstract

   This document describes a framework for providing multicast as a
   service via Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC7279], and
   specifies a few enhancements to [draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions]
   [RFC8279] [draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions] to enable multicast/
   BIER as a service.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.

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 April 25, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  bier-maas                   October 2018

   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 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  A CDN of A Single Provider  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.1.  IGP/BGP Interworking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  A CDN That Involves Another Providers . . . . . . . . . .   6
       1.3.1.  Providing Independent BAAS To Multiple Customers  . .   6
       1.3.2.  Control and Accounting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.4.  Sets and Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.4.1.  Multiple Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.4.2.  Segmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   2.  Specifications for Enhancements to BIER Signaling with
       BGP/IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.1.  BGP Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.2.  ISIS/OSPF Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Currently multicast is primarily used in the following scenarios:

   o  Enterprise Applications.  For example, large scale financial data
      publishing.

   o  Provider/underlay tunnels for MVPN and for EVPN BUM.

   o  Real-time IPTV offered by a service provider to its customers.

   Besides the above, large scale multicast services, especially transit
   multicast transport provided by large Internet Service Providers is

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 25, 2019                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  bier-maas                   October 2018

   virtually non-existent.  This is mainly because of the following
   chicken and egg dilemma:

   o  Traditional multicast technologies are complicated and lack
      scalability.  The revenue that multicast services bring in cannot
Show full document text