Network Working Group M. Day
Internet-Draft Cisco
Expires: July 7, 2002 D. Gilletti
CacheFlow
P. Rzewski
Inktomi
January 7, 2002
Content Internetworking (CDI) Scenarios
draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-05.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 July 7, 2002.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
In describing content internetworking as a technology targeted for
use in the "real world", it's useful to provide examples of the
possible sequence of events that may occur when two content networks
decide to interconnect. The scenarios presented here seek to provide
some concrete examples of what content internetworking is, and also
to provide a basis for evaluating content internetworking proposals.
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1 Terminology....................................................3
2. Special Cases of Content Networks..............................3
2.1 Publishing Content Network.....................................4
2.2 Brokering Content Network......................................4
2.3 Local Request-Routing Content Network..........................4
3. Content Internetworking Arrangements...........................5
4. Content Internetworking Scenarios..............................6
4.1 General Content Internetworking................................6
4.2 BCN providing ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING and REQUEST-ROUTING
INTERNETWORKING................................................9
4.3 BCN providing ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING......................11
4.4 PCN ENLISTS multiple CNs......................................12
4.5 Multiple CNs ENLIST LCN.......................................13
5. Security Considerations.......................................15
6. Acknowledgements..............................................15
References....................................................15
Authors' Addresses............................................16
Full Copyright Statement......................................16
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
1. Introduction
In [1], the concept of a "content network" is introduced and
described. In addition to describing some general types of content
networks, it also describes motivations for allowing content
networks to interconnect (defined as ôcontent internetworkingö).
In describing content internetworking as a technology targeted for
use in the "real world", it's useful to provide examples of the
possible sequence of events that may occur when two content networks
decide to interconnect. Naturally, different types of content
networks may be created due to different business motivations, and
so many combinations are likely.
This document first provides detailed examples of special cases of
content networks that are specifically designed to participate in
content internetworking (Section 2). We then discuss the steps that
would be taken in order to "bring up" or "tear down" a content
internetworking arrangement (Section 3). Next we provide some
detailed examples of how content networks (such as those from
Section 2) could interconnect (Section 4). Finally, we describe any
security considerations that arise specifically from the examples
presented here (Section 5).
The scenarios presented here answer two distinct needs:
1. To provide some concrete examples of what content
internetworking is, and
2. To provide a basis for evaluating content internetworking
proposals.
For details on the architectural framework used in the development
of actual content internetworking protocols and interfaces, refer to
[2]. For specific examples of systems where content internetworking
has been implemented, refer to [5].
1.1 Terminology
Terms in ALL CAPS are defined in [1].
2. Special Cases of Content Networks
A CN is defined in [2] as having REQUEST-ROUTING, DISTRIBUTION, and
ACCOUNTING interfaces. However, some participating networks may
gravitate toward particular subsets of the CONTENT INTERNETWORKING
interfaces. Others may be seen differently in terms of how they
relate to their CLIENT bases. This section describes these refined
cases of the general CN case so they may be available for easier
reference in the further development of CONTENT INTERNETWORKING
scenarios. The special cases described are the Publishing Content
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
Network, the Brokering Content Network, and the Local Request-
Routing Content Network.
2.1 Publishing Content Network
A Publishing Content Network (PCN), maintained by a PUBLISHER,
contains an ORIGIN and has a NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP with two or
more CNs. A PCN may contain SURROGATES for the benefit of serving
some CONTENT REQUESTS locally, but does not intend to allow its
SURROGATES to serve CONTENT on behalf of other PUBLISHERS.
Several implications follow from knowing that a particular CN is a
PCN. First, the PCN contains the AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING
SYSTEM for the PUBLISHER's CONTENT. This arrangement allows the
PUBLISHER to determine the distribution of CONTENT REQUESTS among
ENLISTED CNs. Second, it implies that the PCN need only participate
in a subset of CONTENT INTERNETWORKING. For example, a PCN's
DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM need only be able to receive
DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISEMENTS, it need not send them. Similarly, a
PCN's REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM has no reason to send
AREA ADVERTISEMENTS. Finally, a PCN's ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING
SYSTEM need only be able to receive ACCOUNTING data, it need not
send it.
2.2 Brokering Content Network
A Brokering Content Network (BCN) is a network that does not operate
its own SURROGATES. Instead, a BCN operates only CIGs as a service
on behalf other CNs. A BCN may therefore be regarded as a
"clearinghouse" for CONTENT INTERNETWORKING information.
For example, a BCN may choose to participate in DISTRIBUTION
INTERNETWORKING and/or REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING in order to
aggregate ADVERTISEMENTS from one set of CNs into a single update
stream for the benefit of other CNs. To name a single specific
example, a BCN could aggregate CONTENT SIGNALS from CNs that
represent PUBLISHERS into a single update stream for the benefit of
CNs that contain SURROGATES. A BCN may also choose to participate in
ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING in order to aggregate utilization data
from several CNs into combined reports for CNs that represent
PUBLISHERS.
This definition of a BCN implies that a BCN's CIGs would implement
the sending and/or receiving of any combination of ADVERTISEMENTS
and ACCOUNTING data as is necessary to provide desired services to
other CONTENT NETWORKS. For example, a BCN only interested in
aggregating ACCOUNTING data on behalf of other CNs would only need
to have an ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING interface on its CIGs.
2.3 Local Request-Routing Content Network
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
Another type of CN is the Local Request-Routing CONTENT NETWORK
(LCN). An LCN is defined as a type of network where CLIENTS' CONTENT
REQUESTS are always handled by some local SERVER (such as a caching
proxy [1]). In this context, "local" is taken to mean that both the
CLIENT and SERVER are within the same administrative domain, and
there is an administrative motivation for forcing the local mapping.
This type of arrangement is common in enterprises where all CONTENT
REQUESTS must be directed through a local SERVER for access control
purposes.
As implied by the name, the LCN creates an exception to the rule
that there is a single AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM for a
particular item of CONTENT. By directing CONTENT REQUESTS through
the local SERVER, CONTENT RESPONSES may be given to CLIENTS without
first referring to the AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM. Knowing
this to be true, other CNs may seek a NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP with
an LCN in order to perform DISTRIBUTION into the LCN and receive
ACCOUNTING data from it. Note that once it's participating in
DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING and ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING, the
SERVERS within the LCN effectively take on the role of SURROGATES.
However, an LCN would not intend to allow its SURROGATES to be
accessed by non-local CLIENTS.
This set of assumptions implies multiple things about the LCN's
CONTENT INTERNETWORKING relationships. First, it is implied that the
LCN's DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM need only be able to send
DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISEMENTS, it need not receive them. Second, it is
implied that an LCN's ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM need only be
able to send ACCOUNTING data, it need not receive it. Finally, due
to the locally defined REQUEST-ROUTING, the LCN would not
participate in REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING.
3. Content Internetworking Arrangements
When the controlling interests of two CNs decide to interconnect
their respective networks (such as for business reasons), it is
expected that multiple steps would need to occur.
The first step would be the creation of a NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP.
This relationship would most likely take the form of a legal
document that describes the services to be provided, cost of
services, SLAs, and other stipulations. For example, if an
ORIGINATING CN wished to leverage another CN's reach into a
particular country, this would be laid out in the NEGOTIATED
RELATIONSHIP.
The next step would be to configure CONTENT INTERNETWORKING
protocols on the CIGs of the respective CNs in order to technically
support the terms of the NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP. To follow our
previous example, this could include the configuration of the
ENLISTED CN's CIGs in a particular country to send DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISEMENTS to the CIGs of the ORIGINATING CN. In order to
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
configure these protocols, technical details (such as CIG
addresses/hostnames and authentication information) would be
exchanged by administrators of the respective CNs.
In the event that the controlling interests of two CNs no longer
wish to have their networks interconnected, it is expected that
these tasks would be undone in reverse order. That is, first the
protocol configurations would be changed to cease the movement of
ADVERTISEMENTS and/or ACCOUNTING data between the networks. After
this, the NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP would be legally terminated.
4. Content Internetworking Scenarios
This section provides several scenarios that may arise in CONTENT
INTERNETWORKING implementations.
Note that we obviously cannot examine every single permutation.
Specifically, it should be noted that:
o Any one of the interconnected CNs may have other CONTENT
INTERNETWORKING arrangements that may or may not be transitive to
the relationships being described in the diagram.
o The graphical figures do not illustrate the CONTENT REQUEST
paths. It is assumed that the direction of CONTENT REQUESTS
follow the methodology given in [2] and that the end result is
that a REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM eventually returns to the CLIENT
the IP address of the SURROGATE deemed appropriate to honor the
CLIENT's CONTENT REQUEST.
The scenarios described include a general case, two cases in which
BCNs provide limited interfaces, a case in which a PCN enlists the
services of multiple CNs, and a case in which multiple CNs enlist
the services of an LCN.
4.1 General Content Internetworking
This scenario considers the general case where two or more existing
CNs wish to establish a CONTENT INTERNETWORKING relationship in
order to provide increased scale and reach for their existing
customers. It assumes that all of these CNs already provide REQUEST-
ROUTING, DISTRIBUTION, and ACCOUNTING services and that they will
continue to provide these services to existing customers as well as
offering them to other CNs.
In this scenario, these CIs would interconnect with others via a CIG
which provides a REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM, a
DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM, and an ACCOUNTING
INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM. The net result of this interconnection would
be that a larger set of SURROGATES will now be available to the
CLIENTS.
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
FIGURE 1 shows three CNs which have interconnected to provide
greater scale and reach to their existing customers. They are all
participating in DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING, REQUEST-ROUTING
INTERNETWORKING, and ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING.
As a result of the NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIPS it is assumed that:
1. CONTENT that has been INJECTED into any one of these ORIGINATING
CNs may be distributed into any other ENLISTED CN.
2. Commands affecting the DISTRIBUTION of CONTENT may be issued
within the ORIGINATING CN, or may also be issued within the
ENLISTED CN.
3. ACCOUNTING information regarding CLIENT access and/or
DISTRIBUTION actions will be made available to the ORIGINATING
CN by the ENLISTED CN.
4. The ORIGINATING CN would provide this ACCOUNTING information to
the PUBLISHER based on existing Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
5. CONTENT REQUESTS by CLIENTS may be directed to SURROGATES within
any of the ENLISTED CNs.
The decision of where to direct an individual CONTENT REQUEST may be
dependent upon the DISTRIBUTION and REQUEST-ROUTING policies
associated with the CONTENT being requested as well as the specific
algorithms and methods used for directing these requests. For
example, a REQUEST-ROUTING policy for a piece of CONTENT may
indicate multiple versions exist based on the spoken language of a
CLIENT. Therefore, the REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM of an ENLISTED CN
would likely direct a CONTENT REQUEST to a SURROGATE known to be
holding a version of CONTENT of a language that matches that of a
CLIENT.
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
FIGURE 1 - General CONTENT INTERNETWORKING
+--------------+ +--------------+
| CN A | | CN B |
|..............| +---------+ +---------+ |..............+
| REQ-ROUTING |<=>| |<=>| |<=>| REQ-ROUTING |
|..............| | CONTENT | | CONTENT | |..............|
| DISTRIBUTION |<=>|INTWRKING|<=>|INTWRKING|<=>| DISTRIBUTION |
|..............| | GATEWAY | | GATEWAY | |..............|
| ACCOUNTING |<=>| |<=>| |<=>| ACCOUNTING |
|--------------| +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+
| ^ \^ \^ \^ ^/ ^/ ^/ | ^
v | \\ \\ \\ // // // v |
+--------------+ \\ \\ \\ // // // +--------------+
| SURROGATES | \\ v\ v\ /v /v // | SURROGATES |
+--------------+ \\+---------+// +--------------+
^ | v| |v ^ |
| | | CONTENT | | |
| | |INTWRKING| | |
| | | GATEWAY | | |
| | | | | |
| | +---------+ | |
| | ^| ^| ^| | |
| | || || || | |
| | |v |v |v | |
| | +--------------+ | |
| | | CN C | | |
| | |..............| | |
| | | REQ-ROUTING | | |
| | |..............| | |
\ \ | DISTRIBUTION | / /
\ \ |..............| / /
\ \ | ACCOUNTING | / /
\ \ |--------------| / /
\ \ | ^ / /
\ \ v | / /
\ \ +--------------+ / /
\ \ | SURROGATES | / /
\ \ +--------------+ / /
\ \ | ^ / /
\ \ | | / /
\ \ v | / /
\ \ +---------+ / /
\ \-->| CLIENTS |---/ /
\----| |<---/
+---------+
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
4.2 BCN providing ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING and REQUEST-ROUTING
INTERNETWORKING
This scenario describes the case where a single entity (BCN A)
performs ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING and REQUEST-ROUTING
INTERNETWORKING functions, but has no inherent DISTRIBUTION or
DELIVERY capabilities. A potential configuration which illustrates
this concept is given in FIGURE 2.
In the scenario shown in FIGURE 2, BCN A is responsible for
collecting ACCOUNTING information from multiple CONTENT NETWORKS (CN
A and CN B) to provide a clearinghouse/settlement function, as well
as providing a REQUEST-ROUTING service for CN A and CN B.
In this scenario, CONTENT is injected into either CN A or CN B and
its DISTRIBUTION between these CNs is controlled via the
DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING SYSTEMS within the CIGs. The REQUEST-
ROUTING SYSTEM provided by BCN A is informed of the ability to serve
a piece of CONTENT from a particular CONTENT NETWORK by the REQUEST-
ROUTING SYSTEMS within the interconnected CIGs.
BCN A collects statistics and usage information via the ACCOUNTING
INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM and disseminates that information to CN A and
CN B as appropriate.
As illustrated in FIGURE 2, there are separate REQUEST-ROUTING
SYSTEMS employed within CN A and CN B. If the REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM
provided by BCN A is the AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM for a
given piece of CONTENT this is not a problem. However, each
individual CN may also provide the AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING
SYSTEM for some portion of its PUBLISHER customers. In this case
care must be taken to ensure that the there is one and only one
AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM identified for each given
CONTENT object.
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
FIGURE 2 - BCN providing ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING and
REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING
+--------------+
| BCN A |
|..............| +-----------+
| REQ-ROUTING |<===>| |
|..............| | CONTENT |
| ACCOUNTING |<===>| INTWRKING |
+--------------+ | GATEWAY |
| |
+-----------+
^| ^| ^| ^|
+--------------+ // // \\ \\ +--------------+
| CN A | |v |v |v |v | CN B |
|..............| +---------+ +---------+ |..............|
| REQ-ROUTING |<=>| | | |<=>| REQ-ROUTING |
|..............| | CONTENT | | CONTENT | |..............|
| DISTRIBUTION |<=>|INTWRKING|<=>|INTWRKING|<=>| DISTRIBUTION |
|..............| | GATEWAY | | GATEWAY | |..............|
| ACCOUNTING |<=>| | | |<=>| ACCOUNTING |
|--------------| +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+
| ^ | ^
v | v |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| SURROGATES | | SURROGATES |
+--------------+ +--------------+
^ \ ^ /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ +---------+ / /
\ \---->| CLIENTS |-----/ /
\------| |<-----/
+---------+
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
4.3 BCN providing ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING
This scenario describes the case where a single entity (BCN A)
performs ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING to provide a clearinghouse/
settlement function only. In this scenario, BCN A would enter into
NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIPS with multiple CNs that each perform their
own DISTRIBUTION INTERNETOWRKING and REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING
as shown in FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3 - BCN providing ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING
+--------------+
| BCN A |
|..............| +-----------+
| ACCOUNTING |<===>| |
+--------------+ | CONTENT |
| INTWRKING |
| GATEWAY |
| |
+-----------+
^| ^|
+--------------+ // \\ +--------------+
| CN A | |v |v | CN B |
|..............| +---------+ +---------+ |..............|
| REQ-ROUTING |<=>| |<=>| |<=>| REQ-ROUTING |
|..............| | CONTENT | | CONTENT | |..............|
| DISTRIBUTION |<=>|INTWRKING|<=>|INTWRKING|<=>| DISTRIBUTION |
|..............| | GATEWAY | | GATEWAY | |..............|
| ACCOUNTING |<=>| | | |<=>| ACCOUNTING |
|--------------| +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+
| ^ | ^
v | v |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| SURROGATES | | SURROGATES |
+--------------+ +--------------+
^ \ ^ /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ +---------+ / /
\ \---->| CLIENTS |-----/ /
\------| |<-----/
+---------+
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
4.4 PCN ENLISTS multiple CNs
In the previously enumerated scenarios, PUBLISHERS have not been
discussed. Much of the time, it is assumed that the PUBLISHERS will
allow CNs to act on their behalf. For example, a PUBLISHER may
designate a particular CN to be the AUTHORITATIVE REQUEST-ROUTING
SYSTEM for its CONTENT. Similarly, a PUBLISHER may rely on a
particular CN to aggregate all its ACCOUNTING data, even though that
data may originate at SURROGATES in multiple distant CNs. Finally, a
PUBLISHER may INJECT content only into a single CN and rely on that
CN to ENLIST other CNs to obtain scale and reach.
However, a PUBLISHER may wish to maintain more control and take on
the task of ENLISTING CNs itself, therefore acting as a PCN (Section
2.1). This scenario, shown in FIGURE 4, describes the case where a
PCN wishes to directly enter into NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIPS with
multiple CNs. In this scenario, the PCN would operate its own CIG
and enter into DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING, ACCOUNTING
INTERNETWORKING, and REQUEST-ROUTING INTERNETWORKING relationships
with two or more CNs.
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
FIGURE 4 - PCN ENLISTS multiple CNs
+--------------+
| PCN |
|..............| +-----------+
| REQ-ROUTING |<=>| |<---\
|..............| | CONTENT |----\\
| DISTRIBUTION |<=>| INTWRKING | \\
|..............| | GATEWAY |--\ \\
| ACCOUNTING |<=>| |<-\\ \\
+--------------+ +-----------+ \\ \\
^| ^| ^| ^| \\ ||
+--------------+ || || || \\ || || +--------------+
| CN A | |v |v |v \v |v |v | CN B |
|..............| +---------+ +---------+ |..............|
| REQ-ROUTING |<=>| | | |<=>| REQ-ROUTING |
|..............| | CONTENT | | CONTENT | |..............|
| DISTRIBUTION |<=>|INTWRKING| |INTWRKING|<=>| DISTRIBUTION |
|..............| | GATEWAY | | GATEWAY | |..............|
| ACCOUNTING |<=>| | | |<=>| ACCOUNTING |
|--------------| +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+
| ^ | ^
v | v |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| SURROGATES | | SURROGATES |
+--------------+ +--------------+
^ \ ^ /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ +---------+ / /
\ \---->| CLIENTS |-----/ /
\------| |<-----/
+---------+
4.5 Multiple CNs ENLIST LCN
A type of CN described in Section 2.3 is the LCN. In this scenario,
we imagine a tightly administered CN (such as within an enterprise)
has determined that all CONTENT REQUESTS from CLIENTS must be
serviced locally. Likely due to a large CLIENT base in the LCN,
multiple CNs determine they would like to engage in DISTRIBUTION
INTERNETWORKING with the LCN in order to extend control over CONTENT
objects held in the LCN's SURROGATES. Similarly, the CNs would like
to engage in ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING with the LCN in order to
receive ACCOUTING data regarding the usage of the content in the
local SURROGATES. This scenario is shown in FIGURE 5.
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
FIGURE 5 - Multiple CNs ENLIST LCN
+--------------+ +--------------+
| CN A | | CN B |
|..............| +---------+ +---------+ |..............+
| REQ-ROUTING |<=>| |<=>| |<=>| REQ-ROUTING |
|..............| | CONTENT | | CONTENT | |..............|
| DISTRIBUTION |<=>|INTWRKING|<=>|INTWRKING|<=>| DISTRIBUTION |
|..............| | GATEWAY | | GATEWAY | |..............|
| ACCOUNTING |<=>| |<=>| |<=>| ACCOUNTING |
|--------------| +---------+ +---------+ +--------------+
| ^ \^ \^ ^/ ^/ | ^
v | \\ \\ // // v |
+--------------+ \\ \\ // // +--------------+
| SURROGATES | v\ v\ /v /v | SURROGATES |
+--------------+ +---------+ +--------------+
| |
| CONTENT |
|INTWRKING|
| GATEWAY |
| |
+---------+
^| ^|
|| ||
|v |v
+--------------+
| LCN A |
|..............|
| DISTRIBUTION |
|..............|
| ACCOUNTING |
|--------------|
| ^
v |
+--------------+
| SURROGATES |
+--------------+
| ^
| |
v |
+---------+
| CLIENTS |
| |
+---------+
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
5. Security Considerations
This section contains security considerations that arise
specifically from the examples presented here. For a more general
discussion of security in the CDI protocols, see [2].
Due to the likely reliance on ACCOUNTING data as the basis of
payment for services, the likelihood of fraud may be a concern of
parties that participate in CONTENT INTERNETWORKING. Indeed, it's
easy to imagine fabricating log entries or increasing throughput
numbers to increase revenue. While this is a difficult problem to
solve, there are some approaches to be explored. A useful tool would
be a "fraud detection" analysis tool that is capable of modeling
human usage patterns and detecting anomalies. It may be logical for
such a tool to be run by a BCN that is acting as an "impartial third
party", ENLISTED only to ensure fairness among participants.
Additionally, a BCN may be ENLISTED to perform random audits of
ACCOUNTING data.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contributions and comments of Fred
Douglis (AT&T), Raj Nair (Cisco), Gary Tomlinson (CacheFlow), John
Scharber (CacheFlow), Nalin Mistry (Nortel), Steve Rudkin (BT),
Christian Hoertnagl (IBM), Christian Langkamp (Oxford University),
and Don Estberg (Activate).
References
[1] Day, M., Cain, B., Tomlinson, G., and P. Rzewski, "A Model for
Content Internetworking (CDI)", draft-day-cdnp-model-09.txt
(work in progress), November 2001,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-cdnp-model-
09.txt>.
[2] Green, M., Cain, B., Tomlinson, G., Thomas, S., and P. Rzewski,
"Content Internetworking Architectural Overview", draft-green-
cdnp-gen-arch-03.txt (work in progress), March 2001,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-green-cdnp-gen-
arch-03.txt>.
[3] Gilletti, D., Nair, R., Scharber, J., and J. Guha, "CDN-I
Internetworking Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
Requirements", draft-gilletti-cdnp-aaa-reqs-01.txt (work in
progress), March 2001,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gilletti-cdnp-
aaa-reqs-01.txt>.
[4] Aboba, B., Arkko, J. and D. Harrington, "Introduction to
Accounting Management", RFC 2975, October 2000,
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
<URL:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2975.txt>.
[5] Douglis, F., Chaudhri, I. and P. Rzewski, " Known Mechanisms
for Content Internetworking", draft-douglis-cdi-known-mech-
00.txt, November 2001,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-douglis-cdi-
known-mech-00.txt>.
Authors' Addresses
Mark S. Day
Cisco Systems
135 Beaver Street
Waltham, MA 02452
US
Phone: +1 781 663 8310
EMail: markday@cisco.com
Don Gilletti
CacheFlow, Inc.
441 Moffett Park Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
US
Phone: +1 408 543 0437
EMail: don@cacheflow.com
Phil Rzewski
Inktomi
4100 East Third Avenue
MS FC2-4
Foster City, CA 94404
US
Phone +1 650 653 2487
Email: philr@inktomi.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). 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
Day et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CDI Scenarios January, 2002
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 et. al. Expires July 7, 2002 [Page 17]