Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-14

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12   Best Current Practice
          13 14                                                         
MBONED Working Group                                  Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft                                             Robert Sayko
Intended status: BCP                                               AT&T
Expires: March 28, 2018                                   Greg Shepherd
                                                                  Cisco
                                                        Toerless Eckert
                                                  Futurewei Technologies
                                                           Ram Krishnan
                                                          SupportVectors
                                                      September 28, 2017


            Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
              draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11.txt


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 March 28, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 1]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   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.

Abstract

   This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
   across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
   scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
   multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
   scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
   process.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction .................................................. 3
   2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport ...... 5
   3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast ......... 6
      3.1. Native Multicast ......................................... 6
      3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel .................... 8
      3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
      Enabled ....................................................... 9
      3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast
      Enabled ...................................................... 11
      3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through
      AD-2 ......................................................... 13
   4. Functional Guidelines ........................................ 15
      4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15
      4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines .................. 16
         4.2.1    Native Multicast Routing Aspects ................. 16
         4.2.2    GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point .... 17
         4.2.3    Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels ................. 17
      4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines
       ............................................................. 20
         4.3.1    Provisioning Guidelines .......................... 20
         4.3.2    Application Accounting Guidelines ................ 22
         4.3.3    Log Management Guidelines ........................ 22
      4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines23


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 2]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines .. 25
   5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics .............................. 25
   6. Security Considerations ...................................... 26
   7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 27
   8. Conclusions .................................................. 27
   9. References ................................................... 28
      9.1. Normative References .................................... 28
      9.2. Informative References .................................. 29
   10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 29

1. Introduction

   Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live
   video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery
   via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such
   content/data offers significant savings of utilization of resources
   in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such
   content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the
   content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering
   points.

   The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:
      o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for
        setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data
        across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases.
      o Catalog all required information exchange between the
        administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery.
        This enables operators to initiate necessary processes to
        support inter-domain peering with multicast.

   The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows:

      o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point"
         refers to an interface between two networks/administrative
         domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A
         Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering
         point.
      o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native
         multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2.
      o It is understood that several protocols are available for this
         purpose including PIM-SM and Protocol Independent Multicast -
         Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Internet Group
         Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Multicast Listener
         Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 3]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the
         multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under
         this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the
         receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to
         the source without the need of invoking an intermediate
         Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved
         threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in
         [RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is
         recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter-
         domain peering for ASM (Any-Source Multicast) is not in scope
         for this document.
      o AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols. The
         use of different protocols is beyond the scope of this
         document.
      o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the
         peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not
         multicast enabled. It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be
         available to a client for multicast delivery. The selection of
         an optimal AMT relay by a client is out of scope for this
         document. Note that AMT use is necessary only when native
         multicast is unavailable in the peering point (Use Case 3.3) or
         in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and
         3.5).
      o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the
         application level and is not considered to be a networking
         issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or
         inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document.
      o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only
         considered within the context of a cooperative process between
         the two domains.
   Thus, the primary purpose of this document is to describe a scenario
   where two AD's interconnect via a a peering point  with each other.
   Security and operational aspects for exchanging traffic on a public
   Internet Exchange Point (IXP) with a large shared broadcast domain
   between many operators, is not in scope for this document.

   It may be possible to have a configuration whereby a transit domain
   (AD-3) interconnects AD-1 and AD-2. Such a configuration adds
   complexity and may require manual provisioning if, for example, AD-3
   is not multicast enabled. This configuration is out of cope for this
   document; it is for further study.





Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 4]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering
   process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement
   is beyond the scope of this document.

2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport

   A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows:
      o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
        peering point.
      o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end
        native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by
        one of two possible tunnel types:
        o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784]
          allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or
        o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450].
      o A service provider controls one or more application sources in
        AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more
        (S,G)s. It is assumed that the service being provided is
        suitable for delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming
        of popular events, software downloads to many devices, etc.),
        and that the packet streams will be part of a suitable
        multicast transport protocol.
      o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which
        runs an application client compatible with the service
        provider's application source.
      o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to
        receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU.
        The mechanisms by which the application client learns the
        appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the
        application, and are out of scope for this document.

   The assumption here is that AD-1 has ultimate responsibility for
   delivering the multicast based service on behalf of the content
   source(s). All relevant interactions between the two domains
   described in this document are based on this assumption.







Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 5]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier
   1 network operator domain). Alternately, domain 2 could also be an
   Enterprise network domain operated by a single customer. The peering
   point architecture and requirements may have some unique aspects
   associated with the Enterprise case.

   The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for
   the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is
   described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise
   network possibility will be described in this section. Section 4
   contains a comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to
   be exchanged between the two domains in order to support functions
   to enable the application transport.

3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast

   The transport of applications using multicast requires that the
   inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process.
   There are five Use Cases for consideration in this document.

   3.1. Native Multicast

   This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two
   administrative domains and the peering point is also native
   multicast enabled - Figure 1.
























Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 6]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      -------------------               -------------------
     /       AD-1        \             /        AD-2       \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           / (Multicast Enabled) \
   /                       \         /                       \
   | +----+                |         |                       |
   | |    |       +------+ |         |  +------+             |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  BR  |-|---------|->|  BR  |-------------|-->| EU |
   | |    |       +------+ |   I1    |  +------+             |I2 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \                       /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------


   AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
   AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source
   BR = Border Router
   I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP)
   I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection

      Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast


   Advantages of this configuration are:

      o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains.

      o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when
        compared to an AMT enabled peering point.

   From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with
   native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU
   in AD-2 is that it does not have the ability to count the number of
   End Users as well as the transmitted bytes delivered to them. This
   information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and
   operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by
   the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for
   generating this information need to be robust enough such that all
   pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator
   are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond
   the scope of this document.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

      a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended
        as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 7]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled
        network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated
        accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non-
        rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then
        it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support
        rate-adaption.

      c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two
        domains is typically determined by local policies associated
        with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider
        and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies
        for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from, AD-2.
        Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers
        specified content to AD-2 only if such delivery has been
        accepted by contract.

      d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End
        Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available
        capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and
        formats of the collected information will be determined by
        directives from the source owner and the domain operators.

      e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should, at a minimum,
        follow guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous
        systems [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast
        control-plane and data-plane are described in section 6.



   3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel

   The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case.
   There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the
   peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and
   AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing
   Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast
   protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is
   basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP
   multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across
   the GRE tunnel.

   Advantages of this configuration:




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 8]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains, although not
        as efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case.

      o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream
        when compared to an AMT enabled peering point.

      o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD-
        1 and/or AD-2 (the two Border Routers in Figure 1 do not need
        to be the two "unicast" domain border routers; instead they can
        be anywhere in AD-1 and AD-2).

      o GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
        implement.

   Disadvantages of this configuration:

      o Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the
        number of end users or the number bytes transmitted.

      o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration.

      o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting.

      o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the
   following:

   Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows:

      e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering
      points to support multicast delivery between domains.

      f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server)
      configuration in the source network is such that it only
      advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the
      entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery
      of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g.,
      content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership).

   3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
      Enabled

   Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be
   native multicast enabled here; however, the peering point is not.


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                 [Page 9]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   The peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. The
   basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2.



      -------------------               -------------------
     /       AD-1        \             /       AD-2        \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           / (Multicast Enabled) \
   /                       \         /                       \
   | +----+                |         |                       |
   | |    |       +------+ |         |  +------+             |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  AR  |-|---------|->|  AG  |-------------|-->| EU |
   | |    |       +------+ |   I1    |  +------+             |I2 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \                       /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------


   AR = AMT Relay
   AG = AMT Gateway
   I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
   I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection

            Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2

   Advantages of this configuration:

      o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.

      o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
        implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following:

           o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
             the peering point.

           o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
             policies.

   Disadvantages of this configuration:

      o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router
        technology cannot count the number of end users or the number
        of bytes transmitted to all end users.




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 10]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be
        introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated
        in the existing routing nodes.

      o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically
        select the optimal AR.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1. In addition,

     e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be
     configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery
     between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically
     across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the
     (S, G) information from the EU.

   3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled

   In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not
   multicast enabled. Hence, the interconnection between AD-2 and the
   End User is also not multicast enabled. This Use Case is depicted in
   Figure 3.


      -------------------               -------------------
     /        AD-1       \             /        AD-2       \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           /   (Non-Multicast    \
   /                       \         /       Enabled)        \
   | +----+                |         |                       |
   | |    |       +------+ |         |                       |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  AR  |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
   | |    |       +------+ |         |                       |I2 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \                       /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------


   AS = Application Multicast Source
   AR = AMT Relay
   EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
   I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast
      Enabled AD-2.



Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 11]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


       Figure 3 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway


   This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the
   application through AD-2. The total number of AMT tunnels would be
   equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application.
   The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT
   tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the
   data usage associated with each End User.

   Advantages of this configuration:

      o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.

      o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
        implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following:

           o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
             the peering point.

           o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
             policies.

      o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also
        able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU.

   Disadvantages of this configuration:

      o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced
        into the transport path.

      o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU
        Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-
        1.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1.

     d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such
     that the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the
     correct AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points. The
     application client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S,
     G) information to the Gateway for this purpose.



Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 12]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


     e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for
     the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
     streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.

   3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2

   This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:


      -------------------               -------------------
     /        AD-1       \             /        AD-2       \
    / (Multicast Enabled) \           /   (Non-Multicast    \
   /                       \         /       Enabled)        \
   | +----+                |         |+--+              +--+ |
   | |    |       +------+ |         ||AG|              |AG| |   +----+
   | | AS |------>|  AR  |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|
   | |    |       +------+ |   I1    ||1 |      I2      |2 | |I3 +----+
   \ +----+                /         \+--+              +--+ /
    \                     /           \                     /
     \                   /             \                   /
      -------------------               -------------------



   AS = Application Source
   AR = AMT Relay in AD-1
   AGAR1 = AMT Gateway/Relay node in AD-2 across Peering Point
   I1 = AMT Tunnel Connecting AR in AD-1 to GW in AGAR1 in AD-2
   AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge
   I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2
   EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
   I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2

       Figure 4 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway


   Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire
   network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1
   through the peering point. Depending on the number of End Users,
   there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels
   - and unicast streams - through the peering point. This situation
   can be alleviated as follows:

      o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of
        AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 13]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


        an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering
        point (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).

      o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT
        Relay in AD-1 to the AMT Gateway in the AMT node AGAR1 in AD-2.

      o AMT tunnels linking AMT node AGAR1 at peering point in AD-2 to
        other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel
        I2 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2
        in Figure 4.

      o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in
        device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2:
        e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node
        AGAR2.

   The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the
   total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly
   reduced, thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a
   single unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly,
   an unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4.
   However, this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be
   dynamically configured by the various AMT Gateways based solely on
   the (S,G) information received from the application client at the EU
   device. A suitable mechanism for such dynamic configurations is
   therefore critical.

   Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:

   Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use
   Case 3.1.

     d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such
     that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT
     nodes in AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT
     nodes as appropriate. The application client in the EU device is
     expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this
     purpose.

     e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for
     the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
     streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.






Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 14]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


4. Functional Guidelines

   Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point
   that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in
   this section. Critical information parameters that need to be
   exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated, along with
   guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for
   consideration are as follows.

   4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines

   The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the
   interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The
   following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be
   agreed to between the two administrative domains to support
   multicast delivery.

      o Number of Peering Points.

      o Peering Point Addresses and Locations.

      o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared
        with other services.

      o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or
        via another ISP.

      o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will
        be used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at
        these points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4760] and
        MBGP [RFC4760].

      o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then
        there needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth
        reserved for multicast delivery. When determining the
        appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider use
        of a multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming that
        is consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41].

      o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be
        specified in an SLA.

      o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for
        provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to
        support multicast delivery.


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 15]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines

   The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that
   the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal"
   source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically:

      o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes
        any unicast portion of the delivery, and

      o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance.

   This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual
   methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless,
   the routing solution is expected:

       o To be scalable,

       o To avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications,
         and

       o To be robust enough to achieve high reliability and
         automatically adjust to changes/problems in the multicast
         infrastructure.

   For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as
   possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some
   cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different
   peering points. However, that is entirely an implementation issue.

   4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects

   Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains
   coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their
   network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An
   example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across
   two Administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the
   interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled:

     o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a
        subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This information is in
        the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the
        EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, as
        well as additional information for the application about the
        source location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the
        "S,G" data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of
        the source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 16]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


        contain alternate delivery information such as specifying the
        unicast address of the stream.

     o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
        stream [RFC4604].

   To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following:

      o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points.

      o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity
        and Utilization.

      o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper
        multicast delivery across the peering points.

   4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point

   If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and
   both AD's are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to
   provision a GRE tunnel between the two AD's - see Use Case 3.2.2.
   The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network
   engineering decision, but generally will be between the border
   routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source
   (or source access router). The GRE tunnel would allow end-to-end
   native multicast or AMT multicast to traverse the interface.
   Coordination and advertisement of the source IP is still required.

   The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1
   to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points.

   4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels

   Unlike Native Multicast (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast
   environment is more complex. It presents a dual layered problem
   because there are two criteria that should be simultaneously met:

      o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has
        multicast connectivity to the content source, and

      o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.

   There are essentially two components to the AMT specification:





Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 17]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


     o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast
        traffic to the receivers (i.e., End-Points). The AMT Relay will
        receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and
        will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT
        Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast
        packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway.
        In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and
        activity statistics collection. This results in moving the
        replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on
        traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding
        unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication
        is still required for each requesting End-Point within the
        unicast-only network.

     o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an End-Point - this
        may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The AMT
        Gateway receives join and leave requests from the Application
        via an Application Programming Interface (API). In this manner,
        the Gateway allows the End-Point to conduct itself as a true
        Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate AMT
        messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel (across
        the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay.

   The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that
   are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled AD's. An AMT
   tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the
   peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering
   point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is
   established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned
   element. The two AD's can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay
   Anycast addresses with each other. Alternately, they may decide to
   simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be an
   optimal solution in terms of scalability.

   Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 describe more complicated AMT situations as
   AD-2 is not multicast enabled. For these cases, the End User device
   needs to be able to setup an AMT tunnel in the most optimal manner.
   There are many methods by which relay selection can be done
   including the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables
   [RFC7450]. The choice of the method is implementation dependent and
   is up to the network operators. Comparison of various methods is out
   of scope for this document; it is for further study.

   An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries
   and Anycast IP addresses process for Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 is
   described here. Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows
   for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 18]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is
   strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network
   operators. The basic process is as follows:

   o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The
     metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an
     ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested
     stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the
     group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S"
     portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the
     multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream
     originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate
     delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of
     the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream
     becomes unavailable.

   o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information
     provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in
     order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay.

   o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a
     specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will
     typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo-
     address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to
     the source.

   o If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the
     AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to
     the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing
     choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU. (Note
     that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is
     inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via
     provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this
     document.)

   o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP
     address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required).
     Variations may exist as well.

   o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three-
     way handshake with the AMT Relay.

   o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT
     protocol messages).





Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 19]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join
     the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed
     to that stream.

   o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel
     between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content
     to the EU.



   4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines

   Back Office refers to the following:

   o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery
      of applications via multicast and interactions between AD's.
   o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering,
      provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.


   4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines

   Resources for basic connectivity between AD's Providers need to be
   provisioned as follows:

   o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
      delivery across AD's.
   o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
      all supporting back-offices of the AD's as appropriate. This
      includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
      office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.
   o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support
      these.

   Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain
   delivery are as follows.

   The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
   triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata. Hence, this
   metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and
   unicast fallback if applicable. AD-2 must enable the delivery of
   this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this
   purpose.




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 20]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across
   many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If, however, native
   multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then:

   o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either
      from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or
      AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).
   o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a
      client download site (note: this could be an Application Source
      site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source
      would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is
      provided (assuming multiple possible clients).
   o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2
      AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group
      addresses for streams it is allowed to join.
   o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to
      locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and
      shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's
      multicast source.

   Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are
   stated as follows.

   Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer
   care access to their own systems.

   AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility
   to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by
   AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g.
   to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways:

   o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that
      operations and customer care continue using their own systems.
      This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate
      provisioning of necessary resources.
   o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access
      directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional
      provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
      access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD's
      to support this option.






Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 21]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines

   All interactions between pairs of AD's can be discovered and/or be
   associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.
   Supporting guidelines are as follows:

   o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master
      account.
   o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
      protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple
      accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.
      customer accounts, security accounts, etc.

   4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines

   Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of
   interconnecting AD's requires that appropriate logs will be
   exchanged between them in support. Associated guidelines are as
   follows.

   AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples
   of log types include the following:

   o Usage information logs at aggregate level.
   o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
   o Grouped or sequenced application access.
      performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support
      potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of
      aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets
      of software download.
   o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement
      (with additional detail potentially provided during security
      events, by agreement).
   o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting.
   o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for
      shared troubleshooting.
   o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared
      troubleshooting.

   The two AD's may supply additional security logs to each other as
   agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following:

   o Information related to general security-relevant activity which
      may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 22]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


      types and counts of attacks detected, related source information,
      related target information, etc.
   o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with
      additional detail potentially provided during security events, by
      agreement).


   4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines

   Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to
   multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided
   by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources
   (metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated
   guidelines are as follows:

      o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service
        performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides
        relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to
        create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the
        multicast application source.

      o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be
        used to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example,
        AD-2 may permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2
        multicast service footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its
        own probes and relay performance information back to AD-1.

      o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1
        may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA
        agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2
        if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network.

   Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole)
   provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source
   provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service
   problems occur. EUs direct their complaints to the source provider;
   in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The
   responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1
   will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its
   own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools
   to monitor multicast service status in its own network.

      o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service
        monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of



Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 23]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


        monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to
        inform each other when multicast delivery problems are
        detected.

      o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example,
        for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be
        experiencing difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem
        by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If
        the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery
        degrades, then AD-2 needs to report the issue to AD-1.

      o When problem notification is received from a multicast
        application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the
        problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If
        the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all
        necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting
        information include the following:

          o Kind of problem(s).

          o Starting point & duration of problem(s).

          o Conditions in which problem(s) occur.

          o IP address blocks of affected users.

          o ISPs of affected users.

          o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop.

          o Locations of affected EUs.

      o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for
        multicast service delivery problems. Examples of various
        factors for consideration include:

         o Verification that the service configuration matches the
            product features.

         o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer
            problems and resource troubles into a single root service
            problem.





Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 24]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


         o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving
            consideration to problem impact, service level agreement,
            etc.

         o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a
            series of tests over a period of time.

         o Analysis of test results.

         o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data.

         o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer
            (CP).

      o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the
        problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to
        verify and validate the success of the fix.

      o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the
        multicast application source provider may have to be
        compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be
        compensated by AD-2 based on the contract.

   4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines

   There are multiple options for instituting reliability
   architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should
   work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast
   application source providers.

   Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by
   provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means.

5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics

   Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should
   have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast
   troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly.
   Issues may become apparent or identified either through network
   monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described
   in section 4.4.

   It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected
   according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However,
   given that inter-domain multicast creates a significant
   interdependence of proper networking functionality between providers


Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 25]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   there does exist a need for providers to be able to signal/alert
   each other if there are any issues noted by either one.

   Service providers may also wish to allow limited read-only
   administrative access to their routers via a looking-glass style
   router proxy to facilitate the debugging of multicast control state
   and peering status. Software implementations for this purpose is
   readily available [Traceroute], [draft-MTraceroute] and can be
   easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast
   troubleshooting commands in a secure manner.

   The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of
   this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described
   in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general
   communications issues are stated as follows.

      o Appropriate communications channels will be established between
        the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to
        facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic
        troubleshooting.

      o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open
        issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods
        could be established depending on the severity of the
        identified trouble.

6. Security Considerations

   From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected
   to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to
   registered and authenticated end users. Additionally:

      o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement
        for multicast delivery.

      o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security
        breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for
        shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic
        over alternative peering points. It is also expected that
        appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of
        securing the identified breach.

   DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication
   should be the responsibility of the multicast application source




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 26]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate
   agreements with the source provider.

   Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication
   and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with
   normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security
   and network security.

   AD-1 and AD-2 should have mechanisms in place to ensure proper
   accounting for the volume of bytes delivered through the peering
   point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs. For
   example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to
   ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged
   between them.

   Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content
   is done at the application layer between the client application and
   the source. This may involve some kind of token authentication and
   is done at the application layer independently of the two AD's. If
   there are problems related to failure of token authentication when
   end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating
   proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end
   servers querying the multicast application source provider's token
   authentication server are communicating properly) should be
   considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this
   document.

7. IANA Considerations

   No considerations identified in this document

8. Conclusions

   This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case
   scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across
   peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of
   guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases.

   For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is
   recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the
   various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in
   AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as
   appropriate. Section 4.2 provides an overview of one method that
   finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an
   Anycast IP address for AMT Relays.




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 27]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


9. References

   9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2784]   D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina,
   "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000

   [RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
   Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002

   [RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
   Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004



   [RFC4760] T. Bates, et al, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC
   4760, January 2007

   [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management
   Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery
   Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604,
   August 2006

   [RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
   Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements",
   RFC 4609, August 2006

   [RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
   February 2015

   [RFC7761] B. Fenner, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
   Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised), RFC 7761, March
   2016

   [BCP38] P. Ferguson, et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating
   Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing",
   BCP: 38, May 2000

   [BCP41] S. Floyd, "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, September
   2000




Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 28]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   9.2. Informative References

   [INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a
   Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010,
   December 2012

   [MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D
   draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000

   [Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code

   [draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version
   2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-
   v2-16, October 2016, work in progress



10. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
   suggestions, comments, and corrections:

   Mikael Abrahamsson

   Hitoshi Asaeda

   Dale Carder

   Tim Chown

   Leonard Giuliano

   Jake Holland

   Joel Jaeggli

   Albert Manfredi

   Stig Venaas










Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 29]


IETF I-D  Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points   September 2017


   Authors' Addresses

   Percy S. Tarapore
   AT&T
   Phone: 1-732-420-4172
   Email: tarapore@att.com

   Robert Sayko
   AT&T
   Phone: 1-732-420-3292
   Email: rs1983@att.com

   Greg Shepherd
   Cisco
   Phone:
   Email: shep@cisco.com

   Toerless Eckert
   Futurewei Technologies Inc.
   Phone:
   Email: tte@cs.fau.de

   Ram Krishnan
   SupportVectors
   Phone:
   Email: ramkri123@gmail.com























Tarapore, et al         Expires March 28, 2018                [Page 30]