Network Working Group D. Trossen
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational A. Rahman
Expires: January 11, 2021 C. Wang
InterDigital Communications, LLC
T. Eckert
Futurewei
July 10, 2020
Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay for Adaptive Streaming Services
draft-ietf-bier-multicast-http-response-04
Abstract
HTTP Level Multicast, using BIER, is described as a use case in the
BIER Use Cases document. HTTP Level Multicast is used in today's
video streaming and delivery services such as HLS, AR/VR etc.,
generally realized over IP Multicast as well as other use cases such
as software update delivery. A realization of "HTTP Multicast" over
"IP Multicast" is described for the video delivery use case. IP
Multicast is commonly used for IPTV services. DVB and BBF also
developes a reference architecture for IP Multicast service. A few
problems with IP Multicast, such as waste of transmission bandwidth,
increase in signaling when there are few users are described.
Realization over BIER, through a BIER Multicast Overlay Layer, is
described as an alternative. How BIER Multicast Overlay operation
improves over IP Multicast, such as reduction in signaling, dynamic
creation of multicast groups to reduce signaling and bandwidth
wastage is described. We conclude with a few next steps.
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 January 11, 2021.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(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. Reference Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. HTTP-based Steaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. HTTP-based Software Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Realization over IP Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Mapping to Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Realization over BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Description of a "BIER Multicast Overlay" to support HTTP
Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1. BIER Multicast Overlay Components . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.2. BIER Multicast Overlay Operations . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Achieving Multicast Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. BIER Multicast Overlay Traffic Management . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The BIER Use Cases document [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases] describes an
"HTTP Level Multicast" scenario, where HTTP Responses are carried
over a BIER multicast infrastructure to multiple clients. Especially
rate-adaptive HTTP solutions can benefit from the dynamic multicast
group membership changes enabled by BIER. For this, the server-side
Network Attachment Point (NAP), creates a list of outstanding client-
side NAP requesting for the same HTTP resource. When the response is
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
available, the list of NAPs with outstanding client requests are
converted into the BIER or BIER-TE bitstring and used to send the
HTTP response.
In this draft, we describe use cases for such HTTP response multicast
capability. Specifically for HTTP-based video streaming, we describe
how this can be realized over IP Multicast and how the operation of
the video delivery use case can be improved if realized over BIER.
The realization over BIER is achieved through what is called "BIER
Multicast overlay" layer, i.e., the methods by which the sending BIER
router knows how to send other application packets. The requirements
for BIER Multicast overlay layer is described in this document. It
also describes the necessary functions that form the BIER multicast
overlay and the operations that enable the desired "HTTP Level
Multicast" behavior. One such operation is generating the PATH ID
(represents the path between BFIR and BFER) based on named service
relationship and translating it to appropriate BIER header. We
describe a list of protocols needed for the realization of the
individual operations.
1.1. Reference Deployment
Let us formulate the architecture of the BIER multicast overlay for
the scenario outlined in [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]. This overlay is
shown in Figure 1 below.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
+---------+ +------------+
| | | |/
+IP only +---+ SH + BFER +-----|
|receiver | | (CNAP) |\ |
|UE | +----/\------+ |
+---------+ || |
|| +----------+ +---------+
|| | | | |
|-------- | BFR |---| BFR |------|
| | | | | |
| +----------+ +---------+ |
+---------+ +-------+
| |------------------------------------>| BFIR |
+ BIER TE + | + |
| PCE | +---------+ +-------+ | SH |
| |--|| | |----| BFR |----|(SNAP) |
+---------+ || | BFR | +-------+ | |
|| | | +-------+
|| +---------+ /|\
+---------+ +------\/----+ | |
| | | |/ | |
+IP only +---+ SH + BFER +------| +----------+
|receiver | | (CNAP) |\ | IP only |
+---------+ +------------+ | Sender |
|(Server) |
+----------+
[SH : Service Handler, CNAP : Client Network Attachment Point]
[SNAP : Server Network Attachment Point]
[PCE : Path Computation Element]
Figure 1: Deployment over BIER
The multicast overlay is formed by the BFIR and BFER of the BIER
layer and the additional Service Handler (SH) and Path Computation
Element (PCE) elements shown in the figure. When interconnecting
with a non-BIER enabled IP routed peering network, a special SH, such
as Border Gateway may be used.
The Service Handler and BFER can be assumed to be collocated and can
be viewed as Client Network Attachment Point (CNAP). Clients sends
and receives HTTP transactions through CNAP.
On the server side, the Service handling function can be part of the
Server Network Attachment Point (SNAP). It includes the BFIR
function and SH. SNAP is responsible for aggregating the relevant
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
HTTP Requests and sending one or more BIER Multicast HTTP response to
multiple clients who requested the same content.
The SH function is assumed to be collocated with BFIR / BFER. The
BFIR and BFER is assumed to be normal router boxes in the network.
If the additional function of SH cannot be added to normal routers,
then SH can be deployed as a separate function outside the routers.
In such scenario an interface between SH and BFIR or BFER needs to be
defined.
As part of the POINT/RIFE/FLAME EU Horizon 2020 projects, HTTP Level
Multicast use case has been executed on SDN based and ICN based
underlay network, as described in the
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines].
"HTTP multicast" demonstrated benefits in HTTP-level streaming video
delivery, when deployed on a POINT test bed with 80+ nodes. This
draft [I-D.irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines] also describes protocol
requirements to enable HTTP multicast to work on ICN underlay.
2. Conventions used in this document
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].
3. Use Cases
With the extensive use of "web technology", "distributed services"
and availability of heterogeneous network, HTTP has effectively
transitioned into the common transport or session layer for E2E and
multi-hop communication across the web that is also called Service
signaling. Multi-hop when using a sequence of HTTP instance such as
HTTP caches. The draft "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate"
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis], describes how HTTP is commonly used
among service instances to communicate with each other, thus
abstracting the lower layer details to application developers.
For example, HTTP provides a common transport to support application
layer streaming (Section 3.1) for not only conventional TV
broadcasting, but also emerging Virtual Reality (VR) applications
like VR-based tourist guide. HTTP can also be leveraged to support
wide-area large-scale software updates (Section 3.2) such as for
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) or Internet of vehicles use case. In the
following, we present how such HTTP transport capability can be
extended with multicast delivery for HTTP responses in certain use
cases.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
3.1. HTTP-based Steaming
Referring to the BIER Use Cases [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases], multicast
is used to scale out HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) to a large number of
receivers that use HTTP. This is used today in solutions like DOCSIS
hybrid streaming [TR_IPMC_ABR]. Multicast can speed up both live and
high-demand VoD streaming. Adaptive Bit Rate IPMC [TR_IPMC_ABR]
describes use of IP Multicast towards the CMTS or a box beside it,
where the content is converted to HTTP/TCP to stream to the receivers
(e.g., homes). A server hosting the HLS content is shown as "NAP
Server". The gateways acting as receivers for the multicast from the
server are shown as "Client-NAP" (CNAP). Each CNAP can serve
multiple clients.
Dynamic Adaptive Streaming (DASH) [ISO_DASH] over HTTP is another
HTTP-based streaming approach. In DASH, each media is described by a
Media Presentation Description (MPD) file, through which a DASH
client (e.g. a media player) is instructed how to download, interpret
and play the media. The media content is encoded into fragments or
chunks at different bit rates. Both the MPD and media fragments are
stored at a server. The DASH client first needs to retrieve the MPD
file from the server; then it can start to retrieve media fragments
encoded at different bits rates from the server. DASH players may
use rate adaptation, i.e., switching the retrieval from one rate
chunks to another rate. Usually this rate adaptation is utilizing
delay measurements, resulting in TCP like behavior in terms of
backoff in case of increasing delay. DASH has been designed to reuse
most of existing Internet infrastructure and protocols and can run
over different underlying transports including HTTP. For example,
two major media service providers Netflix and Youtube use DASH over
HTTP as their streaming technology.
HTTP request and response used in media streaming services like HLS
and DASH over HTTP, use HTTP responses for delivery of content, i.e.,
each chunk is returned as an HTTP response to the requesting client.
In such scenarios, where semi-synchronous access to the same resource
occurs (such as watching prominent videos over Netflix or similar
platforms or live TV over HTTP), traffic grows linearly with the
number of viewers since the HTTP-based server will provide an HTTP
response to each individual viewer. This poses a significant burden
on operators in terms of costs and on users in terms of likely
degradation of quality.
The use of HTTP-based streaming of video content is not limited to
traditional TV broadcasting. Consider a virtual reality use case
where several users are joining a VR session at the same time, e.g.,
centered around a joint event. Hence, due to the temporal
correlation of the VR sessions, we can assume that multiple requests
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
are sent for the same content at any point, particularly when viewing
angles of VR clients are similar or the same. Due to availability of
virtual functions and cloud technology, the actual end point from
where content is delivered may change.
3.2. HTTP-based Software Updates
Various new types of devices such as vehicles and robots are being
connected to Internet. They could be physically located at or moving
between different places and connect to Internet via different
telecom operators. Software updates for these devices become
important and introduce point-to-multipoint traffic from a software
server to devices. Using V2X as an example, the software server
could be a part of telecom operators or maintained by car
manufacturers. In either case, the software server keeps vehicle
software or firmware images, which will be transmitted to many
vehicles across the global Internet, based on a pull or push model.
HTTP is commonly used for those software updates to provide an E2E
transport between the software server and each vehicle requesting
software updates. As a result, the traffic from the software server
to vehicles increases linearly with the number of connected vehicles
since each vehicle will establish a HTTP connection with the software
server.
4. Requirements
A realization for the "HTTP multicast" use case may have the
following requirements:
o MUST support multiple FQDN-based service endpoints to exist in the
overlay to allow for utilizing several service endpoints for
delivery and would therefore enable localization of content
delivery.
o MUST send FQDN-based service requests at the network level to a
suitable FQDN-based service endpoint via policy-based selection of
appropriate path information.
o MUST allow for multicast delivery of HTTP response to same HTTP
request URI.
o MUST provide direct path mobility, where the path between the
egress and ingress Service Routers(SR) can be determined as being
optimal (e.g., shortest path or direct path to a selected
instance), is needed to avoid the use of anchor points and further
reduce service-level latency.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
5. Realization over IP Multicast
We now discuss the realization of chunk-based delivery over IP
Multicast delivery methods. We focus our presentation here on the
video streaming use case in Section 3.1.
IPTV or Internet video distribution in CDNs, uses HTTP Level
Multicast and realized over IP Multicast (IPMC). Many features of
the IPTV service uses IPMC Group dependent state. Besides popular
features like PIM, Mldp, in a variable bit rate encoded content
source, content consumption also depends on group state.
DVB released reference architecture [DVB_REF_ARCH] for an end-to-end
system to deliver linear content over IP networks in a scalable and
standards-compliant manner. It focuses on delivering Adaptive Bit
Rate unicast content over a IP Multicast network.
A Multicast gateway is deployed in a CPE, Upstream Network Edge
device or Terminal and provides multicast to unicast conversion
facilities for several homes. All in-scope traffic on the access
network between the Multicast Gateway (e.g. network edge device) and
the Terminal or home gateway device is unicast. The individual media
files are encapsulated into other protocols, so that they can be
recovered as discrete files, when they exit the multicast pipe, which
is terminated at Multicast Gateway. Interface "L" between Multicast
server and Content playback supports fetching of all specified types
of Content, Conditional request, Range request, Caching etc. BBF
also started similar work in October 2016, called WT-399. This work
is now coordinated with DVB. BBF focuses on developing the device
management model.
Assume clients that are consuming the same content (such as a TV
program) and that this content has for each block (typically segments
worth 2 seconds of content) a set of outstanding requests from its
clients. When IP Multicast is used in the domain, such as in
aforementioned pre-existing solutions like in Cablelabs/DOCSIS
[TR_IPMC_ABR], all possible blocks of the content have to be mapped
to some IP Multicast group, and the CNAP will need to know the
mapping of block to groups. For example, a live stream may have 11
different bitrates available. In the most simple Block to IP
Multicast group mapping scheme, there could be 11 multicast groups,
one for all the blocks of one bitrate (note that this is not
necessarily done in deployments of this solution, but we consider it
here for the purpose of explanation).
If the multicast domain and especially the links into the CNAP has
enough bandwidth, this solution work well with IP Multicast. As soon
as there is at least one Client connected to a CNAP for one
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
particular content, the CNAP would join all 11 multicast groups for
this content.
5.1. Mapping to Requirements
To realize "HTTP Level Multicast" over "IP Multicast", some
additional functions needs to be supported in an intermediate
(overlay) layer.
Support of mapping between FQDN based end points, Multicast Address.
Creating multicast group from FQDN based end points.
Control mechanism related to time when to start sending response as
the multicast group is created. It is required that the source
should not send response immediately to the Multicast address. Wait
for some time to build the group sufficiently and then send response.
Support of IGMP signaling between User device, NAPs and Multicast
Router.
5.2. Problems
If the number of clients on a CNAP for a particular program is large,
the approach will work fairly well, because the likelihood that each
of the 11 bitrates of a content is necessary for at least one Client
is then fairly high.
When the number of receivers is not very large, IP Multicast runs
into two issues. If all the bitrates for the content are sent across
the same group, then many of the bitrates may not be required and
would have to be received unnecessarily and dropped by the CNAP. If
each bitrate was sent on a different IP Multicast group, the CNAP
could dynamically join/leave each multicast group based on the known
receivers, but that would create an extremely high and undesirable
amount of IP Multicast signaling protocol activity (PIM/IGMP) that is
easily overloading the network
For efficiency reasons, the CNAP would need to dynamically join to
only those bitrate steams where it does have outstanding requests,
therefore achieving the best efficiency. This would mean in the
worst case that a CNAP would need to send for each new block, aka.:
every two second for every client one IGMP/PIM leave and one IGMP/PIM
join towards the upstream router to get a block for an appropriate
bitrate (or changed content) whenever bitrate or content on a client
have changed. This high rate of control-plane signaling between CNAP
and routers, and even between routers inside the multicast Domain is
a major pain point and may easily prohibit deployment of these
solutions because in many network devices, the performance of PIM/
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
IGMP is not scaled for continuous change in forwarding. Even worse,
the limit may not simply be the CPU performance of the routers
control plane, but a limitation in the number of changes in
forwarding that the forwarding plane units (NPU/ASICs) can support.
6. Realization over BIER
6.1. Description of a "BIER Multicast Overlay" to support HTTP
Multicast
The Service Handler (as in Figure 1) in BIER Multicast Overlay,
process the FQDN in the service request. At the service level, e.g.
HTTP service, the fixed relationship among consumer and providers may
be abstracted using "Service Names", and the changing relationship at
the Service execution endpoints can be managed at the "multicast
overlay" level, handing out the exact locations where service request
or response needs to be sent to BIER layer.
+-------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | PATH ID |
| Service name| | Multicast | | translates|
| [producer, |------->| Overlay |------>| to BIER |
| consumer] | | Layer | | header |
| | | | | |
+-------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 2: Service Name to Path ID Translation
We illustrate this using HTTP URI as service names. It should be
noted, other identifiers can also be used as service name, such as an
IP address. In the example illustration, other layers such as TCP,
IP has been terminated at the egress point. Outside BIER domain we
terminate TCP/IP session to extract the URI. The URI is processed by
the "multicast overlay" layer to generate PATH IDENTIFIER , which is
used as BIER header.
Path Identifier or PATH ID, is used in path-based approach, which
utilizes path information provided by the source of the packet for
forwarding said packet in the network. This is similar to segment
routing albeit differing in the type of information provided for such
source-based forwarding.
Once the BIER header is determined and added at the BFIR, the rest of
the transport layers is assumed to be any underlay technology as
supported by BIER. We assume TCP friendly transport, which can
assure reliable delivery.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
6.1.1. BIER Multicast Overlay Components
With reference to Figure 1, the following components are part of BIER
Multicast Overlay Layer.
o Service Handler (SH): The Service handler terminates transport
level protocols, such as TCP, and extracts the URI. It processes
the URI in order to determine the PATH ID by contacting the PCE
for a suitable path resolution, which in turn is used to send the
HTTP Request.
o Optional PCE : Path Computation Element keeps track of all service
execution end points through a registration process. SH interacts
with the PCE to obtain PATH information by resolving the FQDN from
the incoming URI at the ingress SH to a suitable PATH ID.
o Interface functions to BFIR where the PATH ID is mapped to BIER
header. An Interface to the BFER is likely not required because
the BFER will only receive the traffic that they need and should
be able to derive from the BIER payload which subset of its
receivers need to get an HTTP encapsulated version of a particular
reply.
6.1.2. BIER Multicast Overlay Operations
As shown in Figure 3, the "Multicast overlay function" includes a
function called PCE (Path Computation Element function), which is
responsible for selecting the correct multicast end point and
possibly realizing path policy enforcement. The result of the
selection is a BIER path identifier, which is delivered to the SH
upon initial path computation request (or provided to the ingress
router BFIR to be added as BIER header ) (i.e., when sending a
request to or response for a specific URL for the first time). The
path identifier is utilized for any future request for a given URL-
based request.
All service end points indicate availability to the PCE through a
registration procedure, the PCE will instruct all SHs to invalidate
previous path identifiers to the specific URL that might exist. This
may result in an a renewed path computation request at the next
service request forwarding. Through this, the newly registered
service endpoint might be utilized if the policy-governed path
computation selects said service instance. Otherwise, a previously
resolved PATH ID for the URI determined at the ingress SH is being
used instead, removing any resolution latency to an SH-local lookup
of the PATH ID.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
+-------+ +------+----+ +--------+ +----+-----+
|Apps | |Apps----> | | PCE | | | APP |
|layer |--->|layer | SH | +---/\---+ | SH--> |
|prot | |prot | | || | | LYR |
+-------+ +------+----+ +---------+ +---------+ +----+-----+
| L2 | | L2 |-->|Forwarder|-->|Forwarder|-->| L2 |
+-------+ +------+----+ +---------+ +---------+ +----------+
|--------BIER DOMAIN -------|
Figure 3: Protocol for Multicast Overlay Layer
In the diagram shown above, an HTTP request is sent by an IP-based
device towards the FQDN of the server defined in the HTTP request.
At the client facing SH, the HTTP request is terminated at the TCP
level at a local HTTP proxy. The server side SH at the egress
terminates any transport protocol on the outgoing (server) side.
These terminating functions are assumed to be part of the client/
server SH. As a consequence, the SH obtains the destination "Service
Name" from the received HTTP request.
If no local BIER forwarding information exists at the client side SH,
the path computation entity (PCE) is consulted, which calculates a
unicast path from the BFIR to which the client SH is connected to the
BFER to which the server SH is connected. The PCE provides the
forwarding information (Path ID) to the client SH, which in turn
caches the result. The Client SH may forward the Path ID to BFIR,
which creates the BIER header.
+-------------+--------------+
| | |
| BIER HEADER | HTTP REQUEST |
| | [ENCODED IN |
| | TEXT] |
| | |
+-------------+--------------+
Figure 4: Encapsulation of Service Request
Ultimately, the "HTTP Request" encapsulated by BIER header, as shown
in above diagram, is forwarded by the client SH towards the server-
facing SH via the local BFIR. We assume a (TCP-friendly) transport
protocol being used for the transmission between client and server
SH. The possibility of sending one HTTP response to several CNAPs
makes this a reliable multicast transport protocol. The exact nature
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
of this transport protocol is left for further studies. A suitable
transport or Layer 2 encapsulation, as supported by BIER layer, is
added to the above payload.
+-------------+-------------+--------------+
| | | |
| Transport L2| BIER HEADER | HTTP REQUEST |
| HEADER | | [ENCODED IN |
| | | TEXT] |
| | | |
+-------------+-------------+--------------+
Figure 5: Transport Encapsulation of BIER payload
Upon arrival of an HTTP request at the server SH, it forwards the
HTTP request as a well-formed HTTP request locally to the server,
awaiting an HTTP response for the reverse direction.
If no BIER forwarding information exists for the reverse direction
towards the requesting client SH, this information is requested from
the PCE, similar to the operation in forward direction.
6.2. Achieving Multicast Responses
Upon arrival of any further client SH request at the server SH to an
HTTP request whose response is still outstanding, the client SR is
added to an internal request table. Optionally, the request is
suppressed from being sent to the server.
Upon arrival of an HTTP response at the server SH, the server SH
consults its internal request table for any outstanding HTTP requests
to the same request. The server SH retrieves the stored BIER
forwarding information for the reverse direction for all outstanding
HTTP requests and determines the path information to all client SHs
through a binary OR over all BIER forwarding identifiers with the
same SI field. This newly formed joint BIER multicast response
identifier is used to send the HTTP response across the network.
BIER makes the solution scalable. Instead of IP Multicast with IGMP/
PIM, BIER is being used between Server NAP (SNAP) and CNAP, the SNAP
simply coalesces the forwarded HTTP requests from the CNAP, and
determines for every requested block the set of CNAPs requesting it.
A set of CNAPs corresponds to a set of bits in the BIER-bitstring,
one bit per CNAP. The SNAP then sends the block into BIER with the
appropriate bitstring set.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
This completely eliminates any dynamic multicast signaling between
CNAP and SNAP. It also avoids sending of any unnecessary data block,
which in the IP Multicast solution is pretty much unavoidable.
Furthermore, using the approach with BIER, the SNAP can also easily
control how long to delay sending of blocks. For example, it may
wait for some percentage of the time of a block (e.g, 50% = 1
second), therefore ensuring that it is coalescing as many requests
into one BIER multicast answer as possible.
6.3. BIER Multicast Overlay Traffic Management
BIER-TE (BIER Traffic Engineering [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]) forwards
and replicates packets like BIER based on a BitString in the packet
header. Where BIER forwards and replicates its packets on shortest
paths towards BFER, BIER-TE allows (and requires) to also use bits in
the bitstring to indicate the paths in the BIER domain across which
the BIER-TE packets are to be sent. This is done to support Traffic
Engineering for BIER packets via explicit hop-by-hop and/or loose hop
forwarding of BIER-TE packets. A BIER-TE controller calculates
explicit paths for this packet forwarding.
The Multicast Flow Overlay operates as in BIER. Instead of
interacting with the BIER layer, it interacts with the BIER-TE
Controller.
In this draft, "Name-based" service forwarding over BIER, is
described to handle changes in service execution end points and
manage adhoc relationship in a multicast group. BIER-TE is another
way of doing this, while integrated with BIER architecture. The PCE
function described earlier in the BIER Multicast Overlay, may become
part of BIER-TE Controller. The SH function in the CNAP and SNAP
communicates with BIER TE controller. SH sends the service name to
the controller, which process the request using the PCE function and
returns the "bitstring" to be used as BIER header for delivery of the
HTTP response to multiple clients.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests no IANA actions.
8. Security Considerations
The operations in Section 6 consider the forwarding of HTTP packets
between ingress and egress points based on information derived from
the HTTP request. The support for HTTPS is foreseen to ensure
suitable encryption capability of such exchanges. For this to
happen, we expect certificate sharing agreements to exist between the
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
content provider and the BIER overlay provider, ensuring the
extraction of the suitable request parameters while allowing for the
re-encryption of the content for an encrypted delivery over the BIER
network. Since we liken the relationship between content and BIER
overlay provider to that between content and CDN provider, the
existence of certificate sharing agreements is similar to the
practice used for CDNs.
9. Informative References
[DVB_REF_ARCH]
DVB, "Adaptive media streaming over IP Multicast", DVB
Document A176, March 2018,
<https://www.dvb.org/resources/public/standards/a176_adapt
ive_media_streaming_over_ip_multicast_2018-02-16_draft_blu
ebook.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]
Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., Braun, W., and M. Menth, "Traffic
Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)",
draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-00 (work in progress), January
2018.
[I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]
Nainar, N., Asati, R., Chen, M., Xu, X., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Gulko, A., Robinson, D., Arya, V., and C.
Bestler, "BIER Use Cases", draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-11
(work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis]
Nottingham, M., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate",
draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-05 (work in progress), May
2018.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines]
Rahman, A., Trossen, D., Kutscher, D., and R. Ravindran,
"Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric
Networking (ICN)", draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-
guidelines-07 (work in progress), September 2019.
[ISO_DASH]
ISO, "Information technology -- Dynamic adaptive streaming
over HTTP (DASH) -- Part 1: Media presentation description
and segment formats", ISO/IEC 23009-1:2014, May 2014,
<http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/
index.html>.
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[TR_IPMC_ABR]
CableLabs, "IP Multicast Adaptive Bit Rate Architecture
Technical Report", OC-TR-IP-MULTI-ARCH-V01-141112 C01,
October 2016,
<https://community.cablelabs.com/wiki/plugins/servlet/
cablelabs/alfresco/download?id=51b3c11a-3ba4-40ab-
b234-42700e0d4669;1.0>.
Authors' Addresses
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
205 Hansallee
Duesseldorf 40549
Germany
Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com
URI: http://huawei-dialog.de/
Akbar Rahman
InterDigital Communications, LLC
1000 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal H3A 3G4
Canada
Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
Chonggang Wang
InterDigital Communications, LLC
1001 E Hector St
Conshohocken 19428
USA
Email: Chonggang.Wang@InterDigital.com
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay July 2020
Toerless Eckert
Futurewei Technologies Inc.
2330 Central Expy
Santa Clara 95050
USA
Email: tte+ietf@cs.fau.de
Trossen, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 17]
