Network Working Group M. Day
Internet-Draft Cisco
Expires: March 2, 2001 D. Gilletti
Entera
September 2000
Content Distribution Network Peering Scenarios
draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 March 2, 2001.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document sets forth several logical and detailed scenarios to
be considered when evaluating systems and protocols for CDN peering.
Discussion List Information
This document and related documents are discussed on the cdn mailing
list. To join the list, send mail to cdn-request@ops.ietf.org. To
contribute to the discussion, send mail to cdn@ops.ietf.org. The
archives are at ftp://ops.ietf.org/pub/lists/cdn.*.
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Fundamental Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Logical Peering Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Expanding Existing CDN Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION PEERING Across Multiple
DISTIBUTING CDNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 ACCOUNTING PEERING Across Multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs . . . . . 5
3.4 PUBLISHER peers w/multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
1. Introduction
This document presents several logical scenarios which are intended
to describe the potential configurations that can be realized when
peering CDNs. These logical scenarios describe how various entities
may combine to provide a complete CDN solution. These scenarios
answer two distinct needs:
1. To provide some concrete examples of what CDN peering is, and
2. To provide a basis for evaluating CDN peering proposals.
Each of the logical peering scenarios gives an indication of how the
various CDN elements are combined. From [2] these elements are:
1. REDIRECTION SYSTEM
2. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
3. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
The peering scenarios presented in this document are also framed by
the following concepts:
1. Content Has Value
2. Distribution Has Value
3. Users Have Value
At present, the references to the above concepts are only employed
when they directly affect the nature of the peering scenario. A
reader who is interested in a detailed description of these concepts
is referred to [3].
Terms in ALL CAPS are defined in [1].
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
2. Fundamental Concepts
There are many potential peering configurations that can be imagined
for peered CDNs. All of these configurations MUST adhere to the
following concepts:
There is only one FIRST-REDIRECTION system for a given set of
CONTENT:
In order to prevent potential conflicts this document assumes
that there is one and only one FIRST-REDIRECTION SYSTEM. All
other REDIRECTION SYSTEMs MUST honor this relationship.
There may be more than one ACCOUNTING SYSTEM:
These scenarios assume that multiple ACCOUNTING ENTITIES may
coexist. These entities may require specific ACCOUNTING
information or they may share this information depending upon the
function that they provide.
There may be more than one DISTRIBUTING CDN:
These scenarios assume that multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs may
coexist. They further assume that these CDNs may have peering
relationships that are outside the scope of the scenario being
discussed.
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
3. Logical Peering Scenarios
This section provides several logical peering scenarios that may
arise in peered CDN implementations.
3.1 Expanding Existing CDN Footprint
This scenario considers the case where two or more existing CDNs
wish to peer in order to provide an increased scale and reach. It
assumes that both of them already provide REDIRECTION, DISTRIBUTION,
and ACCOUNTING services and that they will continue to provide these
services to existing customers.
In this scenario it is assumed that the peering relationship between
all entities is comprised of; REDIRECTION PEERING, DISTRIBUTION
PEERING, and ACCOUNTING PEERING.
It is also worthwhile to consider that any one of these peered CDNs
may also have other peering arrangements which may or may not be
transitive to peering relationships created for the above purpose.
3.2 ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION PEERING Across Multiple DISTIBUTING CDNs
This scenario describes the case where a single entity performs
ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION functions but has no inherent
DISTRIBUTION capabilities. This entity must therefore peer with one
or more DISTRIBUTING CDNs in order to provide a complete solution.
In this scenario the entity which operates the ACCOUNTING SYSTEM and
REDIRECTION SYSTEM, at a minumum, would enter into REDIRECTION
PEERING and ACCOUNTING PEERING relationships with each of the
DISTRIBUTING CDNs.
The entity which operates the ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION SYSTEMs
could also play an active role in managing the DISTRIBUTION. In this
case an additional DISTRIBUTION PEERING relationships are required.
It is worth noting that the REDIRECTION SYSTEM discussed here is
typically the FIRST-REDIRECTION SYSTEM although that is not a
requirement.
It is also worthwhile to consider that any one of these peered
entities may also have other peering arrangements which may or may
not be transitive to peering relationships created for the above
purpose.
3.3 ACCOUNTING PEERING Across Multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs
This scenario describes the case where a single ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
which provides a settlement/clearing-house function wishes to peer
w/mulitple DISTRIBUTING CDNs. For the purposes of this scenario it
is not necessary to consider the specifics of REDIRECTION PEERING.
In this scenario the entity which operates the ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
would enter into ACCOUNTING PEERING relationships w/one or more
DISTRIBUTING CDNs.
3.4 PUBLISHER peers w/multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs
This scenario describes the case where a PUBLISHER wishes to
directly enter into peering relationships w/multiple DISTRIBUTING
CDNs. In this scenario it is assumed that the PUBLISHER operates as
the FIRST-REDIRECTION SYSTEM for its CONTENT although it is possible
that this function may be designated to one of the DISTRIBUTING CDNs.
In this scenario the PUBLISHER would enter into; DISTRIBUTION
PEERING, ACCOUNTING PEERING, and REDIRECTION peering with one or
more DISTRIBUTING CDNs.
[EDITORS NOTE: Need more scenarios/examples!!!]
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
4. Security Considerations
This document describes scenarios for use in evaluating CDN peering
proposals. As such, it does not propose any solutions which might
have security concerns.
This docment assumes that any peering solutions which are derived
within the context of Content Alliance effort will be compliant with
the trust model given in [4].
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
5. Conclusion
The set of scenarios contained within this document illustrate the
complete set of requirements which should be met in the design of
CDN peering system(s).
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
6. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contributions and comments of Fred
Douglis (AT&T), Raj Nair (Cisco), Gary Tomlinson (Entera), and John
Scharber (Entera).
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
References
[1] Day, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "A Model for Content
Peering", draft-day-cdnp-model-02.txt (work in progress),
September 2000,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-cdnp-model-02
.txt>.
[2] Green, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "CDN Peering
Architectural Overview", draft-green-cdnp-framework-01.txt
(work in progress), September 2000,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-green-cdnp-framew
ork-01.txt>.
[3] Gilletti, D., Nair, R. and J. Scharber, "Accounting Models for
CDN Peering", draft-gilletti-cdnp-accounting-models-02.txt
(work in progress), September 2000,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gilletti-cdnp-acc
ounting-models-02.txt>.
[4] Aboba, B., Arkko, J. and D. Harrington, "Introduction to
Accounting Management", draft-ietf-aaa-acct-06.txt (work in
progress), June 2000,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-acct-06.
txt>.
Authors' Addresses
Mark S. Day
Cisco Systems
135 Beaver Street
Waltham, MA 02452
US
Phone: PHONE
EMail: markday@cisco.com
Don Gilletti
Entera, Inc.
40971 Encyclopedia Circle
Fremont, CA 94538
US
Phone: +1 510 770 5281
EMail: don@entera.com
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 11]