[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet Engineering Task Force                      Th. Zahariadis, Ed.
Internet Draft                                                 Synelixis
Intended Status: Informational                             Y. Le Louedec
Expires: April 26, 2012                                      Orange Labs
                                                            Ch. Timmerer
                                                                 UNI-KLU
                                                               S. Spirou
                                                                Intracom
                                                              D. Griffin
                                                                     UCL
                                                        October 24, 2011

                  Catalogue of Advanced Use Cases for
                Content Delivery Network Interconnection

                  draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00


Abstract

   The purpose of this draft is to complement the current CDNi WG use-
   cases with a catalogue of advanced, longer-term CDN interconnection
   use cases. The work has been the contribution of six European
   Commission (EC) co-funded projects, which are part of the EC Future
   Media networks (FMN) cluster.


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html




FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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 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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.

   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.
























FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2  Advanced/Long-term CDNi Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1  Use Case 1: Caching-CDN interconnection . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2  Use Case 2: CDN-CDN interconnections at large scale . . . .  6
     2.3 Use Case 3: Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in
         multi-CDNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4 Use Case 4: Dynamic expansion of CDN capacity and
         geographical reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3  Relationship between CDNI and Information-Centric Networking  .  9
   4  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1  List of Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2 Informative reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
































FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


1  Introduction

   The purpose of this draft is to complement the current CDNi Work
   Group short-term use-cases with a catalogue of advanced, longer-term
   CDN interconnection use cases. The proposed catalogue of use cases is
   coming from or inspired by work in the European Commission (EC)
   Future Media Network (FMN) cluster research projects. Though they are
   beyond the current short-term objectives of the CDNi WG, the proposed
   use cases could drive future work in the CDNi WG, especially in case
   of WG re-chartering (once the present goals will be reached). The use
   cases are derived from ongoing research work in six EC co-funded
   projects where concrete design, implementation and evaluation work is
   being undertaken to validate the approaches.

   Moreover, this draft compares CDNs with Information-Centric
   Networking (ICN) which have similar goals and use cases. We discuss
   here this relation for the benefit of people and organizations
   working in these areas.

1.1  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   The present document reuses terminology defined by CDNi WG documents
   [I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement], [I-D.ietf-cdni-use-cases] and [I-
   D.ietf-cdni-requirements]".

1.2  Abbreviations

    [Ed.  Note: List of abbreviations to be updated later]

      o  CSP: Content Service Provider

      o  dCDN: downstream CDN

      o  FMN: Future Media Networks

      o  ICN: Information-Centric Networking

      o  NSP: Network Service Provider

      o  QoE: Quality of Experience

      o  SLA: Service Level Agreement

      o  uCDN: upstream CDN



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


      o  MPD: Media Presentation Description

      o  DASH:  Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP

2  Advanced/Long-term CDNi Use Cases

   This draft includes four advanced CDNi use cases. The first use case
   introduces a Caching-CDN interconnection that put emphasis on the in-
   the network caching mechanism. As CDNi WG mainly targets
   interconnection between two CDNs, the second use case extends this
   use case to large-scale CDNs. The third use case introduces support
   of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) in a multi-CDNs
   context, which may be today's most promising video distribution
   method as it overcomes limitations posed by firewalls and promises
   efficient distribution utilizing CDNs and network caching resources.
   Finally, the forth use case proposes the dynamic expansion of CDN
   capacity and geographical reach.

2.1  Use Case 1: Caching-CDN interconnection

   Some telecom operators and NSP deploy caching servers, a.k.a.
   "transparent caching" servers, in their IP networks in order to cache
   content by CDNs over Internet, with as goal to relax and balance the
   load on their IP networks.

   Today in most situations the two overlay networks - the upstream CDN
   (uCDN) and the downstream CDN (dCDN) set of transparent caching
   servers - run independently from each other. There is no specific
   interconnection interface between the two overlay networks.

   There could be some interest to set up interfaces between these
   overlay networks (of course on condition that their owners get the
   right business incentives for).

   Here are two illustrations of the potential benefits (this is not an
   exhaustive list):

   - Setting up a "logging interface" between the two overlay networks
   could be beneficial for providing the uCDN (and beyond the Content
   Service Providers, CSP) with useful logging, monitoring, reporting
   data.

   - Setting up a "CDN metadata interface" between the two overlay
   networks could be beneficial for allowing the uCDN to request that a
   given content file be purged from, or invalidated in, any downstream
   caching server.

   The current charter of the CDNi WG states "the WG will not define



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


   support for transparent caching across CDNs". The first priority is
   indeed to meet the goals and milestones specified in the current
   charter.

   This use case proposal aims at recommending that this "caching-cdn
   interconnection" use case be considered in case of WG re-chartering
   (once the present goals will be reached).

   The first difference with the present cdn-cdn interconnection model
   addressed by the CDNi WG is that there is no request routing
   interface in this "caching-cdn interconnection" use case. Then
   different sub-cases can be envisioned, depending on which CDNi
   interfaces are leveraged (with or without logging interface, with or
   without CDNI metadata interface, etc.). In a first approach, this
   "caching-cdn interconnection" use case could therefore be considered
   as a sub-case of the current CDNi WG's cdn-cdn interconnection
   model.

   Note. Once such specific interfaces are set up between the uCDN and
   the dCDN set of transparent caching servers, the latter ones cannot
   be any more considered as fully transparent, at least from the
   viewpoint of the uCDN. This should call for a slight evolution of the
   terminology.


2.2  Use Case 2: CDN-CDN interconnections at large scale

   The current focus of the CDNi WG is on the interconnection between
   two CDNs.

   The purpose here would be to investigate situations where (possibly
   much) more than two CDNs are involved in a CDN federation.

   As stated by the Amplification Principle defined in [RFC3439] "there
   do exist non-linearities which do not occur at small to medium scale,
   but occur at large scale". As a result, the number of involved CDNs
   could impact on the requirements and constraints, especially in terms
   of scalability, and therefore on the conceivable technical options to
   ensure interconnection.

   As an illustration of the amplification principle application in
   CDNi, the initial considerations, and potential issues, about request
   routing in CDN interconnect scenarios presented in [I-D.stiemerling-
   cdni-routing-cons] could be even more critical in large scale CDN
   federations.

   This would possibly lead to the definition of specific sub cases
   corresponding to cdn-cdn interconnections at large scale. Yet the



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


   first priority (and prerequisite before investigating such large
   scale use cases) is to meet the goals and milestones specified in the
   current charter, i.e. to specify adequate interfaces for
   interconnecting two CDNs. So this proposal aims at recommending that
   this "cdn-cdn interconnections at large scale" use case be considered
   in case of WG re-chartering (once the present goals will be reached).

2.3 Use Case 3: Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in multi-CDNs

   The ever-growing video traffic on the Internet requires more
   efficient content distribution mechanisms. Compared to existing
   RTP/RTSP-based streaming or HTTP progressive download, Dynamic
   Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) enables stateless communication
   between a client and the corresponding server, better content
   adaptability and support for live media services [Stockhammer2011].
   Intrinsic characteristic of DASH is the content fragmentation into
   various representations comprising segments (or sub-segments) of
   different encodings of one or several media components. These
   components/segments are transferred, along with content metadata
   descriptors referred to as media presentation description (MPD), to
   the origin servers. Using MPD, clients request the segments utilizing
   HTTP GET or partial GET requests.

   DASH is considered as a promising solution for efficient and high-
   quality delivery of streaming services over the Internet and is
   currently standardized as 3GP-DASH, MPEG-DASH, and OIPF HAS. It
   supports among others, re-use of existing technologies (codecs,
   containers, etc.), deployment on top of HTTP-CDNs, re-use of HTTP
   origin and cache/proxy servers, re-use of existing media play-out
   engines, as well as on-demand, live and time-shifted delivery.

   For example, DASH may be exploited within specific CDNs enabling
   clients to retrieve content hosted by given surrogates, taking into
   account the scale, the coverage and the reliability of HTTP-based CDN
   systems. Additionally, DASH can be also utilized as a delivery
   solution in a CDN Interconnect environment, enabling content
   acquisition among different providers. In such a case, a content
   service provider (e.g., CSP-1 in the following figure) will first
   ingest the prepared content into CDN-A, so that each surrogate can
   act as a DASH server offering the streaming service to the requesting
   End-User, acting as DASH client, connected with a different CDN
   (e.g., CDN-B). Towards this, CDN Interconnection requires interfaces
   among CDNs to be capable of facilitating their collaboration besides
   ensuring content streaming efficiently.







FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


                 +-------+              +-------+
                 | CSP-1 |              | CSP-2 |
                 +-------+              +-------+
                     |                      |
                ,--,--,--.             ,--,--,--.
             ,-'          `-.       ,-'          `-.
            ( CDN Provider A )=====( CDN Provider B )
             `-.  (CDN-A) ,-'-------`-. (CDN-B)  ,-'
                `--'--'--'     |       `--'--'--'
                               |           |
                               |           | DASH
                             DASH    +------------+
                                     | User Agent/|
                                     | DASH Client|
                                     +------------+
       === CDN Interconnection

   In other words, in an interconnected CDN environment the definition
   of a control interface is required, which will enable DASH clients to
   acquire specific information from a hosting CDN over multiple-CDNs.
   Towards these, the anticipated interface must be able of
   providing/delivering:

   - The Media Presentation Description that contains metadata to
   construct appropriate HTTP-URLs to access segments and to provide the
   streaming service to the user.

   - The Number of source surrogates: one or multiple (content segments
   can be acquired from multiple sources).

   - The location of source surrogates: e.g., locality-aware
   capabilities for choosing the nearest source(s), as a matter of
   geographical (internal or external) or network-based metrics (e.g.,
   using latency or cost-based metrics).

   - Delivery protocols: Definition of the delivery protocols used for
   the delivery of segments.

   - Additional metadata for content delivery (e.g., metadata for
   content-aware networks).

2.4 Use Case 4: Dynamic expansion of CDN capacity and geographical reach

   ISPs may offer a set of specialized network services which may be
   invoked by their customers, including CDN providers, with appropriate
   prior agreements and possible payments. The network service of most
   relevance to this use case is the provision of caching resources
   located within the ISP. A CDN provider making use of such a service



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


   may invoke new caching resources within a local or remote ISP to
   dynamically create new CDN surrogate nodes. The newly created
   resources are provided by the network provider but under the control
   of the CDN provider.

   This is an alternative way of dealing with increased load on a CDN,
   and a CDN provider who is able to invoke dynamic nodes is therefore
   able to expand dynamically to accommodate increased traffic demand or
   extend geographical reach. Such a CDN provider could a) advertise its
   elasticity to upstream CDNs which could simplify/enhance its
   resource-routing algorithm decisions, or b) advertise its new
   capabilities dynamically as it expands/contracts. These announcements
   could be made part of the CDNi control interface interactions and
   contributions could be made on the protocol extensions to announce
   capabilities dynamically and also to propose elasticity metrics.


3  Relationship between CDNI and Information-Centric Networking

   CDN interconnection has similar goals and use cases to Information-
   Centric Networking (ICN). We discuss here this relation for the
   benefit of people and organizations working in these areas. We start
   with a very brief description of CDNs and ICN in order to have a
   common understanding. We then discuss similarities and differences in
   terms of objectives, technical approach, deployment and business
   models. Finally, we explore the possibility of interaction and
   coexistence of ICN and CDN in a future Internet. CDNs are real
   working systems, while ICN is still at the research stage. It is
   important to note that our analysis is based on the state of ICN
   research and the assumption that ICN will meet its design goals.

   A CDN is a privately owned overlay network that aims to optimize
   delivery of content from (Content Service Providers) CSPs to End
   Users. CDNs are independent of each other. Optimization is in terms
   of performance, availability and cost. CDNs operate by serving
   content to User Agents from managed caches - called surrogates - at
   the edge of the network. CDNs may also use reserved network
   resources. The CDN provider collaborates with NSPs on surrogate
   placement and network resource reservation. The deployment, extension
   and (part of) the operation of CDNs are centrally managed. To
   maintain transparency for End Users, normal content locators (e.g.,
   URLs) are used to access content. However, the CDN treats those
   locators as simple content identifiers when selecting a surrogate, in
   effect, decoupling the locator from the content location.

   ICN shares many of the goals of CDNs. Optimization of delivery with
   ICN usually entails caching, QoS-aware routing and traffic
   differentiation, to various degrees. Unlike CDNs, ICN aims at



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


   operating natively at the NSP level (although operation as an overlay
   is also possible). An NSP deploys ICN-enabled elements (mainly
   routers) with minimal planning in terms of content demand. The ICN
   reach grows with each new ICN-enabled NSP, without any central
   management. For content access, ICN uses explicit content identifiers
   that are independent from the content location.

   A main objective of both CDNs and ICN is the effective delivery of
   content from CSPs to End Users. ICN also aims at accommodating End
   Users as small CSPs, i.e., End Users who want to share content. The
   decoupling of content identifiers from the content location is an
   explicit goal in ICN, while in CDN this is a by-product.

   The main elements of a CDN are a set of content servers and a request
   redirection system. The content servers are carefully placed to be
   close to the User Agents and can be populated prior to any requests
   based on foreseen demand. An End User requests content with a normal
   URL, which triggers a part of the redirection system that resides at
   the seeming location of the content. The redirection system selects a
   content server based on criteria aiming to optimize some aspect of
   the delivery task. The selected content server then delivers the
   requested content to the User Agent.

   In ICN, any edge router with storage capabilities can act as a
   content server, which is populated based on actual demand.
   Alternatively, or in addition, QoS-aware routing and traffic
   differentiation techniques are used to establish a path from the
   content source to the User Agent. Content is requested with a
   dedicated identifier. This identifier can be used to route the
   request to the content source or to an intermediate content server,
   while constructing the path. Alternatively, the identifier can be
   used as an index in a directory system to retrieve content metadata.
   The metadata are then used to setup a path from the content source to
   the User Agent.

   A CDN constitutes an administrative domain, whereas in ICN an
   administrative domain can be as granular as an ICN router. When
   viewed in terms of administrative domains, CDN interconnection
   resembles the interconnection of ICN elements/domains. As such,
   request routing in CDNI and in ICN presents similar technical
   challenges. Following this thinking, the Content Distribution
   Metadata and CDNI Metadata of CDNI become related to the content
   metadata that are used in ICN to establish a path.

   A CDN is deployed as an overlay with all its elements independent
   from NSPs and belonging to the same CDN Provider. The CDN Provider
   works closely with the CSP in order to ingest and place content.
   There's also close collaboration between the CDN Provider and the



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 10]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


   NSPs for server placement and reservation of resources. Once the CDN
   is operational, any unforeseen change in CSP requirements, network
   conditions or End User demand will force the CDN Provider to re-
   design the deployment. To avoid this, CDNs are designed with over-
   provisioning and redundancy. On the other hand, ICN is deployed as
   NSP infrastructure. Each NSP owns and independently manages the ICN
   elements in its domain. There's no "ICN Provider" to oversee the
   deployment of ICN. The system grows as each NSP becomes ICN-enabled.
   In order to use ICN, CSPs need to provide content source servers and
   content metadata. ICN is designed with flexibility in mind, which
   permits coping with many unforeseen events.

   In a typical business case for CDNs, a CDN is deployed in and NSP
   domain and the NSP acts both as a CDN Provider and a (sole) CSP. NSPs
   use this model to offer content services, such as IPTV, to their End
   Users and so to differentiate their business. In another model for
   CDNs, a CDN Provider agrees with several NSPs to deploy content
   servers and reserve resources in their domain. The CDN Provider then
   sells content delivery services to interested CSPs.

   The ICN business model is very similar to that for connectivity
   services. An NSP deploys ICN in its domain and makes transit or
   peering agreements with other ICN-enabled NSPs. The NSP then offers
   content delivery services to CSPs. It is also possible for the NSP to
   offer content consumption services to its End Users.

   In a future Internet where ICN is deployed by some NSPs, it would be
   difficult to meet end-to-end the ICN performance goals, because of
   the "holes" between ICN domains. In such a case, CDNs can act as
   overlay bridges, because they might already have content close to the
   downstream ICN domain. In essence, from the ICN point of view, CDN
   Providers would become CSPs. However, the incentive for the CDN
   Provider is unclear, as such a move could undermine its own content
   delivery service. Borrowing from the motivation for CDNI, a CDN
   Provider who wants to extend its reach, instead of interfacing with a
   neighboring CDN, could interface with an ICN-enabled NSP. This is of
   course a scenario that only market forces and time can validate.

4  Acknowledgements

   This draft has been produced by the Future Media Networks (FMN)
   cluster of the Networked Media Systems FP7 projects. The work leading
   to these results has received funding from the European Union's
   Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) in(alphabetic order):
   ALICANTE (FP7-ICT-248652; http://www.ict-alicante.eu/),
   COAST (FP7-ICT-248036; http://www.coast-fp7.eu/),
   COMET (FP7-ICT-248784; http://www.comet-project.org/),
   ENVISION (FP7-ICT-248565; http://www.envision-project.org/),



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 11]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


   NEXTMEDIA (FP7-ICT-249065; http://www.fi-nextmedia.eu/) and
   OCEAN (FP7-ICT-248775; http://www.ict-ocean.eu/).



4.1  List of Contributors

   Andrzej Beben, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland;

   Christian Timmerer, UNI-KLU, Austria;

   David Florez Rodriguez, Telefonica R&D, Spain;

   David Griffin, Yiannis Psaras, Raul Landa, UCL, UK;

   Daniel Negru, Labri, France;

   Evangelos Pallis, Petros Anapliotis, TEIC, Greece;

   George Xilouris, DEMOKRITOS, Greece;

   Isidro Laso, European Commission, Belgium (on a personal basis);

   Klaus Satzke, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, Germany;

   Michalis Georgiadis, PrimeTel, Cyprus;

   Ning Wang, University of Surrey, UK;

   Spiros Spirou, Intracom Telecom, Greece;

   Theodore Zahariadis (editor), Synelixis, Greece;

   Yannick Le Louedec, Orange Labs, France;

   Yiping Chen, Daniel Negru, CNRS-LaBRI, France.


5  References

5.1  Normative References


   [RFC3439]  R. Bush, D. Meyer, "Internet Architectural Guidelines,"
              RFC 3439, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3439.txt (updates
              RFC 1958), December 2002.

   [I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement] Niven-Jenkins, B., Faucheur, F.,



FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 12]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


              and N. Bitar, "Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI) Problem Statement", draft-ietf-
              cdni-problem-statement-00 (work progress), September 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements] Leung, K. and Y. Lee, "Content
              Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements",
              draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-00 (work in progress),
              September 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-cdni-use-cases] Bertrand, G., Stephan, E., Watson, G.,
              Burbridge, T., Ma, K., "Use Cases for Content Delivery
              Network Interconnection", draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases-00
              (work in progress), September 2011.

5.2 Informative reference

   [I-D.stiemerling-cdni-routing-cons] Stiemerling, M., "Considerations
              on Request Routing for CDNI", draft-stiemerling-cdni-
              routing-cons-00, July 2011

   [Stockhammer2011] T. Stockhammer, "Dynamic adaptive streaming over
              HTTP: standards and design principles", ACM Proceedings of
              the second annual ACM conference on Multimedia systems,
              2011.

   [3GP-DASH] ETSI TS 126 247 v10.0.0 (2011-06) Universal Mobile
              Telecommunications System (UMTS); LTE; Transparent end-to-
              end Packet-switched Streaming Service (PSS); Progressive
              Download and Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (3GP-
              DASH) (3GPP TS 26.247 version 10.0.0 Release 10).





















FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 13]


Internet Draft    draft-fmn-cdni-advanced-use-cases-00      October 2011


Authors' Addresses


              Yannick Le Louedec
              Orange Labs, France
              Email: yannick.lelouedec@orange.com

              Christian Timmerer
              UNI-KLU, Austria
              Email: christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at

              Spiros Spirou
              Intracom, Greece
              Email: spis@intracom.com

              David Griffin
              UCL, UK
              Email: dgriffin@ee.ucl.ac.uk

              Theodore Zahariadis
              Synelixis, Greece
              Email: zahariad@synelixis.com





























FMN                      Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 14]