Internet Engineering Task Force G. Bertrand, Ed.
Internet-Draft E. Stephan
Intended status: Informational France Telecom - Orange
Expires: November 25, 2012 T. Burbridge
P. Eardley
BT
K. Ma
Azuki Systems, Inc.
G. Watson
Alcatel-Lucent (Velocix)
May 24, 2012
Use Cases for Content Delivery Network Interconnection
draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases-06
Abstract
Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are commonly used for improving the
End User experience of a content delivery service, at a reasonable
cost. This document focuses on use cases that correspond to
identified industry needs and that are expected to be realized once
open interfaces and protocols supporting interconnection of CDNs are
specified and implemented. The document can be used to guide the
definition of the requirements to be supported by CDN Interconnection
(CDNI) interfaces.
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 http://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 November 25, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Rationale for Multi-CDN Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Footprint Extension Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Geographic Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Inter-Affiliates Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. ISP Handling of Third-Party Content . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Nomadic Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Offload Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Overload Handling and Dimensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Failure of Content Delivery Resources . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Content Acquisition Resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. CDN Capability Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Device and Network Technology Extension . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Technology and Vendor Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. QoE and QoS Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Enforcement of Content Delivery Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Content Service Providers' Delivery Policies . . . . 13
A.1. Content Delivery Policy Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2. Secure Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.3. Branding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
1. Introduction
Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are commonly used for improving the
End User experience of a content delivery service, at a reasonable
cost. This document focuses on use cases that correspond to
identified industry needs and that are expected to be realized once
open interfaces and protocols supporting interconnection of CDNs are
specified and implemented. The document can be used to guide the
definition of the requirements (as documented in
[I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements]) to be supported by the set of CDN
Interconnection (CDNI) interfaces defined in
[I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement].
This document identifies the main motivations for a CDN Provider to
interconnect its CDN:
o CDN Footprint Extension Use Cases (Section 2)
o CDN Offload Use Cases (Section 3)
o CDN Capability Use Cases (Section 4)
Then, the document highlights the need for interoperability in order
to exchange and enforce content delivery policies (Section 5).
1.1. Terminology
We adopt the terminology described in
[I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement], and [I-D.davie-cdni-framework].
We extend this terminology with the following terms.
Access CDN:
A CDN that includes Surrogates in the same administrative network as
the end-user. Such CDN can use accurate information on the End
User's network context to provide valued-added Content Delivery
Services to Content Service Providers.
1.2. Abbreviations
o CDN: Content Delivery Network also known as Content Distribution
Network
o CSP: Content Service Provider
o dCDN: downstream CDN
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
o DNS: Domain Name System
o DRM: Digital Rights Management
o EU: End User
o ISP: Internet Service Provider
o NSP: Network Service Provider
o QoE: Quality of Experience
o QoS: Quality of Service
o uCDN: upstream CDN
o URL: Uniform Resource Locator
o WiFi: Wireless Fidelity
1.3. Rationale for Multi-CDN Systems
Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are used to deliver content because
they can:
o improve the experience for the End User; for instance delivery has
lower latency (decreased round-trip-time and higher throughput
between the user and the delivery server) and better robustness
(ability to use multiple delivery servers),
o reduce the network operator's costs; for instance, lower delivery
cost (reduced bandwidth usage) for cacheable content,
o reduce the Content Service Provider's (CSP) internal costs, such
as datacenter capacity, space, and electricity consumption, as
popular content is delivered externally through the CDN rather
than through the CSP's own servers.
Indeed, many Network Service Providers (NSPs) and enterprise service
providers are deploying or have deployed their own CDNs. Despite the
potential benefits of interconnecting CDNs, today each CDN is a
standalone network. The objective of CDN Interconnection is to
overcome this restriction: the interconnected CDNs should be able to
collectively behave as a single delivery infrastructure.
An example is depicted in Figure 1, where two CDN Providers establish
a CDN Interconnection. The Content Service Provider CSP-1 reaches an
agreement with CDN Provider 'A' for the delivery of its content.
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
Independently, CDN Provider 'A' and CDN Provider 'B' agree to
interconnect their CDNs.
When a given User Agent requests content from CSP-1, CDN-A may
consider that delivery by CDN-B is appropriate, for instance, because
CDN-B is an Access CDN and the user is directly attached to it.
Through the CDN Interconnection arrangements put in place between
CDN-A and CDN-B (as a result of the CDN Interconnection agreement
established between CDN Provider 'A' and CDN Provider 'B'), CDN-A can
redirect the request to CDN-B and the content is actually delivered
to the User Agent by CDN-B.
The End User benefits from this arrangement through a better Quality
of Experience (QoE), because the content is delivered from a nearby
Surrogate. CDN Provider 'A' benefits because it does not need to
deploy such an extensive CDN, whilst CDN Provider 'B' may receive
some compensation for the delivery. CSP-1 benefits because it only
needs to make one business agreement and one technical arrangement
with CDN Provider 'A', but its End Users get a service quality as
though CSP-1 had also gone to the trouble of making a business
agreement and technical arrangement with CDN Provider 'B'.
+-------+ +-------+
| CSP-1 | | CSP-2 |
+-------+ +-------+
| |
,--,--,--./ ,--,--,--.
,-' `-. ,-' `-.
(CDN Provider 'A')=====(CDN Provider 'B')
`-. (CDN-A) ,-' `-. (CDN-B) ,-'
`--'--'--' `--'--'--'
|
+------------+
| User Agent |
+------------+
=== CDN Interconnection
Figure 1
To extend the example, another Content Service Provider, CSP-2, may
also reach an agreement with CDN Provider 'A'. However, CSP-2 may
not want its content to be distributed by CDN Provider B; for
example, CSP-2 may not have distribution rights in the country where
CDN Provider 'B' operates. This example illustrates that policy
considerations are an important part of CDNI.
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
2. Footprint Extension Use Cases
Footprint extension is expected to be a major use case for CDN
Interconnection.
2.1. Geographic Extension
In this use case, the CDN Provider wants to extend the geographic
distribution that it can offer to its CSPs:
o without compromising the quality of delivery,
o without incurring additional transit and other network costs that
would result from serving content from geographically or
topologically remote Surrogates,
o without incurring the cost of deploying and operating Surrogates
and the associated CDN infrastructure that may not be justified in
the corresponding geographic region (e.g., because of relatively
low delivery volume, or conversely because of the high investments
that would be needed to satisfy the high volume).
If there are several CDN Providers that have a geographically limited
footprint (e.g., restricted to one country), or do not serve all End
Users in a geographic area, then interconnecting their CDNs enables
these CDN Providers to provide their services beyond their own
footprint.
As an example, suppose a French CSP wants to distribute its TV
programs to End Users located in France and various countries in
North Africa. It asks a French CDN Provider to deliver the content.
The French CDN Provider's network only covers France, so it makes an
agreement with another CDN Provider that covers North Africa.
Overall, from the CSP's perspective the French CDN Provider provides
a CDN service for both France and North Africa.
In addition to video, this use case applies to other types of content
such as automatic software updates (browser updates, operating system
patches, virus database update, etc).
2.2. Inter-Affiliates Interconnection
The previous section describes the case of geographic extension
between CDNs operated by different entities. A large CDN Provider
may have several subsidiaries that also each operate their own CDN
(which may rely on different CDN technologies, see Section 4.2). In
certain circumstances, the CDN Provider needs to make these CDNs
interoperate to provide a consistent service to its customers on the
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
whole collective footprint.
2.3. ISP Handling of Third-Party Content
Consider an ISP carrying to its subscribers a lot of content that
comes from a third party CSP and that is injected into the ISP's
network by an Authoritative CDN Provider. There are mutual benefits
to the ISP (acting as an Access CDN), the Authoritative CDN, and the
CSP that would make a case for establishing a CDNI agreement. For
example:
o Allow the CSP to offer improved QoE and QoE services to
subscribers, for example, reduced content startup time or
increased video quality and resolution of adaptive streaming
content.
o Allow the Authoritative CDN to reduce hardware capacity and
footprint, by using the ISP caching and delivery capacity.
o Allow the ISP to reduce traffic load on some segments of the
network by caching inside of the ISP network.
o Allow the ISP to influence and/or control the traffic ingestion
points.
o Allow the ISP to derive some incremental revenue for transport of
the traffic and to monetize QoE services.
2.4. Nomadic Users
In this scenario, a CSP wishes to allow End Users who move between
access networks to continue to access their content. The motivation
of this case is to allow nomadic End Users to maintain access to
content with a consistent QoE, across a range of devices and/or
geographic regions.
This use case covers situations like:
o End Users moving between different access networks, which may be
located within the same geographic region or different geographic
regions,
o End Users switching between different devices or delivery
technologies, as discussed in Section 4.
Consider the following example, illustrated in Figure 2: End User A
has subscription to a broadband service from NSP A, her "home NSP".
NSP A hosts CDN-A. Ordinarily, when End User A accesses content via
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
NSP A (her "home NSP") the content is delivered from CDN-A, which in
this example is within NSP A's network.
However, while End User A is not connected to NSP A's network, for
example, because it is connected to a WiFi provider or mobile
network, End User A can also access the same content. In this case,
End User A may benefit from accessing the same content but delivered
by an alternate CDN (CDN-B), in this case, hosted in the network of
the WiFi or mobile provider (NSP B), rather than from CDN-A in NSP
A's network.
+-------+
|Content|
+-------+
|
,--,--,--. ,--,--,--.
,-' NSP A `-. ,-' NSP B `-.
( (CDN-A) )=====( (CDN-B) )
`-. ,-' `-. ,-'
`--'--'--' `--'--'--'
| |
+------------+ +---------------+
+ EU A (home)| | EU A (nomadic)|
+------------+ +---------------+
=== CDN Interconnection
Figure 2
The alternate CDN (CDN-B) is allowed to distribute the content of CSP
A to End User A; however, no other End Users in the region of CDN-B
are allowed to retrieve the content unless they too have such an
agreement for nomadic access to content.
Depending on CSP's content delivery policies (see Appendix A.1), a
user moving to a different geographic region may be subject to geo-
blocking content delivery restrictions. In this case, he/she may not
be allowed to access some pieces of content.
3. Offload Use Cases
3.1. Overload Handling and Dimensioning
A CDN is likely to be dimensioned to support an expected maximum
traffic load. However, unexpected spikes in content popularity
(flash crowd) may drive load beyond the expected peak. The prime
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
recurrent time peaks of content distribution may differ between two
CDNs. Taking advantage of the different traffic peak times, a CDN
may interconnect with another CDN to increase its effective capacity
during the peak of traffic. This brings dimensioning savings to the
CDNs as they can use the resources of each other during their
respective peaks of activity.
Offload also applies to planned situations where a CDN Provider needs
CDN capacity in a particular region during a short period of time.
For example, a CDN can offload traffic to another CDN during a
specific maintenance operation or for covering the distribution of a
special event. For instance, consider a TV-channel which has
exclusive distribution rights on a major event, such as a
celebrities' wedding, or a major sport competition. The CDNs that
the TV-channel uses for delivering the content related to this event
are likely to experience a flash crowd during the event and to need
offloading traffic, while other CDNs will support a more usual
traffic load and be able to handle the offloaded traffic.
In this use case, the Delivering CDN on which requests are offloaded
should be able to handle the offloaded requests. Therefore, the uCDN
might require information on the dCDNs to be aware of the amount of
traffic it can offload to every dCDN.
3.2. Resiliency
3.2.1. Failure of Content Delivery Resources
It is important for CDNs to be able to guarantee service continuity
during partial failures (e.g., failure of some Surrogates). In
partial failure scenarios, a CDN Provider has at least three options:
1. if possible, use internal mechanisms to redirect traffic on
surviving equipment,
2. depending on traffic management policies, forward some requests
to the CSP's origin servers, and
3. redirect some requests toward another CDN, which must be able to
serve the redirected requests.
The last option is a use case for CDNI.
3.2.2. Content Acquisition Resiliency
Source content acquisition may be handled in one of two ways:
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
o CSP origin, where a CDN acquires content directly from the CSP's
origin server, or
o CDN origin, where a downstream CDN acquires content from a
Surrogate within an upstream CDN.
The ability to support content acquisition resiliency, is an
important use case for interconnected CDNs. When the content
acquisition source fails, the CDN might switch to another content
acquisition source. Similarly, when several content acquisition
sources are available, a CDN might balance the load between these
multiple sources.
Though other server and/or DNS load balancing techniques may be
employed in the network, interconnected CDNs may have a better
understanding of origin server availability and be better equipped to
both distribute load between origin servers and attempt content
acquisition from alternate content sources when acquisition failures
occur. When normal content acquisition fails, a CDN may need to try
other content source options, e.g.:
o an upstream CDN may acquire content from an alternate CSP origin
server,
o a downstream CDN may acquire content from an alternate Surrogate
within an upstream CDN,
o a downstream CDN may acquire content from an alternate upstream
CDN, or
o a downstream CDN may acquire content directly from the CSP's
origin server.
Though content acquisition protocols are beyond the scope of CDNI,
the selection of content acquisition sources should be considered and
facilitated.
4. CDN Capability Use Cases
4.1. Device and Network Technology Extension
In this use case, the CDN Provider may have the right geographic
footprint, but may wish to extend the supported range of devices and
User Agents or the supported range of delivery technologies. In this
case, a CDN Provider may interconnect with a CDN that offers
services:
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
o that the CDN Provider is not willing to provide or,
o that its own CDN is not able to support.
The following examples illustrate this use case:
1. CDN-A cannot support a specific delivery protocol. For instance,
CDN-A may interconnect with CDN-B to serve a proportion of its
traffic that requires HTTPS [RFC2818]. CDN-A may use CDN-B's
footprint (which may overlap with its own) to deliver HTTPS
without needing to deploy its own infrastructure. This case
could also be true of other formats, delivery protocols (RTMP,
RTSP, etc.) and features (specific forms of authorization such as
tokens, per session encryption, etc.).
2. CDN-A has footprint covering traditional fixed line broadband and
wants to extend coverage to mobile devices. In this case, CDN-A
may contract and interconnect with CDN-B who has both:
* physical footprint inside the mobile network,
* the ability to deliver content over a protocol that is
required by specific mobile devices.
These cases can apply to many CDN features that a given CDN Provider
may not be able to support or not be willing to invest in, and thus,
that the CDN Provider would delegate to another CDN.
4.2. Technology and Vendor Interoperability
A CDN Provider may deploy a new CDN to run alongside its existing
CDN, as a simple way of migrating its CDN service to a new
technology. In addition, a CDN Provider may have a multi-vendor
strategy for its CDN deployment. Finally, a CDN Provider may want to
deploy a separate CDN for a particular CSP or a specific network. In
all these circumstances, CDNI benefits the CDN Provider, as it
simplifies or automates some inter-CDN operations (e.g., migrating
the request routing function progressively).
4.3. QoE and QoS Improvement
Some CSPs are willing to pay a premium for enhanced delivery of
content to their End Users. In some cases, even if the CDN Provider
could deliver the content to the End Users, it cannot meet the CSP's
service level requirements. As a result, the CDN Provider may
establish a CDN Interconnection agreement with another CDN Provider
that can provide the expected QoE to the End User, e.g., via an
Access CDN able to deliver content from Surrogates located closer to
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
the End User and with the required service level.
5. Enforcement of Content Delivery Policy
An important aspect common to all the above use cases is that CSPs
typically want to enforce content delivery policies. A CSP may want
to define content delivery policies that specify when, how, and/or to
whom the CDN delivers content. These policies apply to all
interconnected CDNs (uCDNs and dCDNs) in the same or similar way that
a CSP can define content delivery policies for content delivered by a
single, non-interconnected CDN. Appendix A provides examples of CSP
defined policies.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kent Leung, Francois Le Faucheur, Ben
Niven-Jenkins, and Scott Wainner for lively discussions, as well as
for their reviews and comments on the mailing list.
They also thank the contributors of the EU FP7 OCEAN and ETICS
projects for valuable inputs.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
This document focuses on the motivational use cases for CDN
Interconnection, and does not analyze the associated threats. Those
are discussed in [I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement].
9. Informative References
[I-D.davie-cdni-framework]
Davie, B. and L. Peterson, "Framework for CDN
Interconnection", draft-davie-cdni-framework-01 (work in
progress), October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", draft-ietf-cdni-problem-statement-06 (work in
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements]
Leung, K. and Y. Lee, "Content Distribution Network
Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements",
draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-02 (work in progress),
December 2011.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
Appendix A. Content Service Providers' Delivery Policies
CSPs commonly apply different delivery policies to given sets of
content assets delivered through CDNs. Interconnected CDNs need to
support these policies. This annex presents examples of CSPs'
delivery policies and their consequences on CDNI operations.
A.1. Content Delivery Policy Enforcement
The content distribution policies that a CSP attaches to a content
asset may depend on many criteria. For instance, distribution
policies for audiovisual content often combine constraints of varying
levels of complexity and sophistication, e.g.:
o temporal constraints (e.g., available for 24 hours, available 28
days after DVD release, etc.),
o user agent platform constraints (e.g., mobile device platforms,
desktop computer platforms, set-top-box platforms, etc.),
o resolution-based constraints (e.g., high definition vs. standard
definition encodings),
o user agent identification or authorization,
o access network constraints (e.g., per NSP), and
o geolocation-based constraints (e.g., per country).
CSPs may use sophisticated policies in accordance to their business
model. However, the enforcement of those policies does not
necessarily require that the delivery network understand the policy
rationales or how policies apply to specific content assets. Content
delivery policies may indeed be distilled into simple rules which can
be commonly enforced across all dCDNs. These rules may influence
dCDN delegation and Surrogate selection decisions, for instance, to
ensure that the specific rules (e.g. time-window, geo-blocking, pre-
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
authorization validation) can indeed be enforced by the delivering
CDN. In turn, this can guarantee to the CSP that content license
violations can be prevented, including prevention of premature access
to pre-positioned content or enforcement of geo-blocking policies.
+-----+
| CSP | Policies driven by business (e.g., available
+-----+ only in UK and only from July 1st to September 1st)
\
\ Translate policies into
\simple rules (e.g., provide an authorization token)
\
V
+-----+
| CDN | Apply simple rules (e.g., check an
+-----+ authorization token and enforce geoblocking)
\
\ Distribute simple rules
V
+-----+
| CDN | Apply simple rules
+-----+
Figure 3
A.2. Secure Access
Many protocols exist for delivering content to End Users. CSPs may
dictate a specific protocol or set of protocols which are acceptable
for delivery of their content, especially in the case where content
protection or user authentication is required (e.g., must use HTTPS).
CSPs may also perform per-request authentication/authorization
decision and then have the CDNs enforce that decision (e.g., must
validate URL signing, etc.).
A.3. Branding
Preserving the branding of the CSP throughout delivery is often
important to the CSP. CSPs may desire to offer content services
under their own name, even when the associated CDN service involves
other CDN Providers. For instance, a CSP may desire to ensure that
content is delivered with URIs appearing to the End Users under the
CSP's own domain name, even when the content delivery involves
separate CDN Providers. The CSP may wish to prevent the delivery of
its content by specific dCDNs that lack support for such branding
preservation features.
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
Analogous cases exist when the uCDN wants to offer CDN services under
its own branding even if dCDNs are involved. Similarly, a CDN
Provider might wish to restrict the delivery delegation to a chain
that preserves its brand visibility.
Authors' Addresses
Gilles Bertrand (editor)
France Telecom - Orange
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy les Moulineaux, 92130
FR
Phone: +33 1 45 29 89 46
Email: gilles.bertrand@orange.com
Stephan Emile
France Telecom - Orange
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion F-22307
France
Email: emile.stephan@orange.com
Trevor Burbridge
BT
B54 Room 70, Adastral Park, Martlesham
Ipswich, IP5 3RE
UK
Email: trevor.burbridge@bt.com
Philip Eardley
BT
B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham
Ipswich, IP5 3RE
UK
Email: philip.eardley@bt.com
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases May 2012
Kevin J. Ma
Azuki Systems, Inc.
43 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
USA
Phone: +1 978-844-5100
Email: kevin.ma@azukisystems.com
Grant Watson
Alcatel-Lucent (Velocix)
3 Ely Road
Milton, Cambridge CB24 6AA
UK
Email: gwatson@velocix.com
Bertrand, et al. Expires November 25, 2012 [Page 16]