PPSP Y. Zhang
Internet Draft China Mobile
N.Zong
HuaweiTech
G.Camarillo
Ericsson
J.seng
PPlive
R.Yang
Yale University
Intended status: Informational September 25, 2011
Expires: March 2012
Problem Statement of P2P Streaming Protocol (PPSP)
draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-05.txt
Abstract
P2P streaming systems show more and more popularity in current
Internet with proprietary protocols. This document identifies
problems of the proprietary protocols, proposes standard signaling
protocols called PPSP and discusses the scope and use cases of PPSP.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 25, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully,
as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this
document. Code Components extracted from this document must include
Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust
Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in
the Simplified BSD License.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 4
2. Terminology and concepts ..................................... 6
3. Problem statement ........................................... 8
3.1. Difficulties for ISPs in deploying P2P caches ........... 8
3.2. Difficulties in building open streaming delivery
infrastructure .............................................. 8
3.3. Difficulties in mobile and wireless environment .......... 9
3.4. Difficulties for resource-constraint terminals to run
multiple background programs at the same time ............... 10
4. PPSP:Standard peer to peer streaming protocols .............. 11
5. Use cases of PPSP .......................................... 14
5.1. Worldwide provision of open P2P live streaming services . 14
5.2. CDN supporting P2P streaming ........................... 15
5.3. PPSP supporting cross-screen streaming in heterogeneous
environment ................................................ 16
5.4. Supporting P2P streaming in cellular mobile network ..... 16
5.5. Cache service supporting P2P streaming ................. 17
6. Security Considerations ..................................... 19
7. IANA Considerations ........................................ 20
8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 21
9. References ................................................. 22
9.1. Normative References ................................... 22
9.2. Informative References ................................. 22
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
1. Introduction
Streaming traffic is among the fastest growing traffic on the
Internet. As Cisco Visual Network Traffic index measured, video
streaming already generates the largest volume of Internet traffic in
the year of 2010, and the percentage is expected to rise to as high
as 91% of the total Internet traffic by 2014[Cisco].
There are two basic architectures for delivering streaming traffic on
the Internet: the client-server paradigm and the peer to peer (P2P)
paradigm [Survey]. The basic advantage of the P2P paradigm is its
scalability and fault tolerance against failures of centralized
infrastructures. As an example, PPLive [PPLive], one of the largest
P2P streaming vendors, is able to distribute large-scale, live
streaming programs such as the CCTV Spring Festival Gala to more than
3 million users with only a handful of servers. It can also deliver
VoD streaming to a scale of some hundred of thousands simultaneous
users using the same structure and similar protocols [VoD]. The
effect of P2P technologies is also well demonstrated in delivering
real and VoD streaming effectively in current practice like CNN [CNN],
PPstream [PPStream],UUSee [UUSee]and CNTV[CNTV]. The latest release
of Adobe Flash, a major platform of streaming distribution in the
Internet, has also introduced Cirrus [Cirrus], a peer assisted data
exchange mode. One point that should also be noted is that P2P
approach requires more resources and computational power on the
clients (when compared to client-server architecture), as well as a
lot of clients to participate in the P2P network for the network to
be efficient. This is less challenging for highly increasing
capability on hardware.
What's more, along with the new players like CDN providers
(e.g.,Akamai NetSession [Akamai], ChinaCache[ChinaCache]) joining in
the effort of using P2P streaming delivery in providing their content,
the P2P streaming ecosystem is becoming more complex with diverse
players varying from the source, infrastructure side, edge delivery
side even to the heterogeneous kinds of terminals.
Given the increasing integration of P2P streaming into the global
content delivery infrastructure, the lacking of an open, standard P2P
streaming signaling protocol suite becomes a major missing component
in the protocol stack. Almost all of these systems use their
proprietary signaling protocols. Multiple, similar but proprietary
signaling protocols result in repetitious development efforts for new
systems, and the lock-in effects lead to substantial difficulties in
their integration. For example, in the enhancement of existing caches
and CDN systems to support P2P streaming, open protocols may reduce
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
the complexity of the interaction with different P2P streaming
applications.
In this document we propose an open P2P streaming protocol named PPSP,
to standardize signaling operations on two important components, peer
and tracker in P2P streaming systems for information exchange. The
problems of proprietary signaling protocols and benefit of PPSP are
explained further in section 3.
PPSP will serve as an enabling technology, building on the
development experiences of existing P2P streaming systems. Its design
will allow it to integrate with IETF protocols on distributed
resource location, traffic localization, and streaming control and
data transfer mechanisms for building a complete streaming system or
updating /integrating existing cache/CDN to support P2P streaming
delivery.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
2. Terminology and concepts
Chunk: A chunk is a basic unit of partitioned streaming. Peers may
use a chunk as a unit of storage, advertisement and exchange among
peers [VoD]. Note that a streaming system may use different units for
advertisement and data exchange, using chunks during data exchange,
and a larger unit such as a set of chunks during advertisement.
Content Distribution Network (CDN): A CDN node refers to a network
entity that is deployed in the network (e.g., at the network edge or
data centers) to store content provided by the original servers, and
serves content to the clients located nearby topologically.
Client: A client refers to the service requester in client/server
computing paradigm. In this draft a client refers to a participant in
a P2P streaming system that only receives streaming content. In some
cases the node is not eligible to be a peer without enough computing
and storage capability is acting as a client. It can be viewed as a
specific kind of peer.
Live streaming: It refers to a scenario where all clients receive
streaming content for the same ongoing event. It is desired that the
lags between the play points of the clients and that of the streaming
source be small.
P2P cache: A P2P cache refers to a network entity that caches P2P
traffic in the network, and either transparently or explicitly as a
peer distributes content to other peers.
Peer: A peer refers to a participant in a P2P streaming system that
not only receives streaming content, but also stores and uploads
streaming content to other participants.
PPSP: The abbreviation of Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocols. PPSP
refer to the key signaling protocols among various P2P streaming
system components, including the tracker and the peer.
Swarm: A swarm refers to a group of peers who exchange data to
distribute the same content (e.g. video/audio program, digital file,
etc) at a given time.
Tracker: A tracker refers to a directory server which maintains a
list of peers which participate in a specific video channel or in the
distribution of a streaming file, and answers queries from peers for
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
peer lists. The tracker is a logical component which can be
centralized or distributed.
Video-on-demand (VoD): It refers to a scenario where different
clients may watch different parts of the same recorded media with
downloaded content.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
3. Problem statement
The problems imposed by proprietary signaling for P2P streaming
applications are listed as follows.
3.1. Difficulties for ISPs in deploying P2P caches
Facing with many P2P streaming applications, ISPs are witnessing a
big traffic tension on their backbone and inter-networking points.P2P
caches are used to reduce the traffic by dynamically storing the
frequently accessed streaming content (maybe in chunk or in file
granularity). However, the cache nodes need to execute DPI (deep
packet inspection) for identifying different P2P streaming systems.
Multiple ever changing proprietary P2P streaming protocols require
the P2P cache updating its matching library constantly which
increases the operator's cost dramatically.
With PPSP, P2P caches can detect P2P streaming applications much
easier without needing to update its library, as there is only a
single protocol to be detected and not a potentially unknown set of
proprietary P2P protocols. This reduces the ISP workload to a large
extent. Note that using standard PPSP won't hurt current P2P
streaming vendors: Firstly, the openness of signaling interaction
makes it easy to integrate them with ISP's caches for better user
experience, say, smaller delay of the play. Secondly, -with PPSP,
different applications use PPSP for signaling, but implement
something system specific on top of that. That is to say, different
P2P streaming systems compete on "on top" things, like scheduling
algorithms, which is independent of how the peers exchange chunk
availability. In other words, different systems can have quite
different scheduling algorithms with same tracker/peer protocol,
which is easier to be open.
3.2. Difficulties in building open streaming delivery infrastructure
More and more efforts are seeking for building an open global
streaming delivery infrastructure, where P2P-type is accounting for a
large portion. However if current multiple proprietary protocols
continue to work, there will exist lots of specific and independent
systems to deliver vast of same streaming content. This brings more
burdens for identifying and sharing the same contents, increases the
storage, forwarding and maintenance cost in the intermediate nodes
for repeated content. This will definitely increase the cost of
streaming distribution and causes possible congestion in the network.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
Consider a case where source vendors cooperate with 3rd party CDN
provider. Such integration is already practiced by UUSee[UUSee],
RayV[RayV] and Forcetech[Forcetech]. The effect has been verified to
improve the total performance of P2P streaming (e.g., with lower
latency) by providing more stable "super peers" and reduce traffic
for ISP [CDN+P2P] [RFC 5693].However, there are substantial obstacles
for CDN nodes supporting proprietary P2P streaming protocols [HPTP].
Unlike the Web where all kinds of the infrastructure devices have
been already equipped with standard HTTP protocol, an open CDN
supporting various P2P streaming applications need to understand and
keep updated on various protocols. Similar to the caching case in
Section 3.1, this introduces complexity and deployment cost.
With PPSP, CDN nodes can be designed to inter-operate with other
devices by only standard protocols, reducing the case by case
negotiation between the P2P streaming providers and CDN providers.On
the other side, the interface between CDN nodes and user peers can be
either HTTP or PPSP.
3.3. Difficulties in mobile and wireless environment
Mobility and wireless are becoming increasingly important features in
today's Internet. It is predicted that by the end of 2012, the number
of mobile Internet users will surpass that of fixed Internet users in
China [Statistics]. Mobile streaming has becoming a key offering. In
Korea the number of mobile TV subscriber has reached seventeen
millions, accounting for one third of the mobile subscribers. During
the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, more than one million users enjoyed
mobile TV service. There are more and more studies exploring P2P
streaming in mobile and wireless networks [Mobile Streaming1] [Mobile
Streaming2].
However it's difficult to copy current P2P streaming protocols in
mobile and wireless networks. Current protocols are designed mainly
for fixed Internet. Although smart handsets are more eligible to be
peers with much better bandwidth and higher CPU frequency, larger
storage and memory than before, peer selection is more challenging
which needs more information to exchange during the tracker/peer and
peer/peer communications: First, in mobile and wireless networks, the
connections are unsteady, lower and costly(esp. in uplink). The
trackers and peers may need more information, compared to fixed
Internet, like packet loss rate, peer battery status and processing
capability for peer selection. Note that not all mobile nodes are
eligible to be peers. The new-added information should help the
tracker/peer to make the decision. Second, current practices often
use a "bitmap" message to exchange chunk availability among
peers/trackers. The message is often of some kilobytes size and
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
relatively frequent to exchange. In the mobile networks, the
bandwidth is scarce and a reasonable optimization is to reduce the
message size, which maybe requires a new expression on "bitmap".
Third, mobility issue. When a peer is moving and the IP address
changes, the on-going connection and transmission between peers may
be affected. Therefore such information should be reported in time,
which is not addressed in current practices.
PPSP should investigate these factors for a practical converged
network from the beginning of the design.
3.4. Difficulties for resource-constraint terminals to run multiple
background programs at the same time
Private protocols may require a terminal to install different
software for different applications. Note that for many client
software, even it's not used by the users right now, the background
program may be invoked to facilitate other peers for free data
delivery assistance. In other words, there will be multiple
background programs running at the same time. However it may be
difficult to invoke multiple programs in a resource constraint peer
like mobile handsets or set-top box. The limited CPU, storage and
memory often limit the total number of concurrent threads and
processes. Taking storage for example, according to
[PPStream][UUSee][PPLive Design], the buffer of each peer's hard disk
contributed to the system is at least 1GB. If each mobile peer, like
iPhone (version 1) runs two such background applications at the same
time, the storage cannot be shared for different applications and it
will consume one fourth of all its storage (8 GB), leaving other data
with fewer storage.
PPSP can help to reduce the resource consumption on resource
constraint devices, such as STBs or mobile phones, by reusing a PPSP
base library and potentially other optimizations.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
4. PPSP:Standard peer to peer streaming protocols
The objective of the PPSP working group is to design a unified peer-
to-peer streaming protocol (PPSP) to address the problems discussed
in the preceding sections.
There are basically two kinds of P2P streaming systems, pull-based
and push-based.
In pull-based P2P streaming systems, a centralized tracker or
distributed trackers maintains information about which peers are in
which swarms and answers the peers' query on such information with a
peer-list. After receiving the message, the peer can connect with the
candidates in a swarm, exchange its content availability in its
memory or storage (depending on it's real-time or VoD streaming) with
other peers and then retrieve the wanted streaming data. The swarm is
a mesh topology. Most of the current practices are belonging to this
genre. The advantages of pull-based mode are its robustness to the
peer churn and acceptable latency for a smooth play.
In push-based P2P streaming systems, there is a head node maintaining
the topology, e.g., a tree. The peers in this topology share the same
interest on content. The signaling and data distribution are both
based on this topology. For one program or video file, the peer
queries the head node for its location to join and the head node
replies with a peer-list(potentially in a recommended order). After
receiving this peer-list, the peer can connect with the candidates
for being a node in certain place of the topology and receive the
data along this topology without the need of exchanging content
availability with its siblings. In this sense the head node is acting
as the tracker. The push mode has the advantages of lower latency but
the topology is fragile to the peer churn. Few commercially deployed
systems use this mode.
A more practical mode is a hybrid pull-push mode where the peers
exchange content availability with its siblings for retrieving
requsted data.
In live streaming, all peers are interested in the media coming from
an ongoing event, which means that all peers share nearly the same
streaming content at a given point of time. In live streaming, some
peers may store the live media for further distribution, which is
known as TSTV (time-shift TV), where the stored media are separated
into chunks and distributed in a VoD-like manner.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
In VoD, different peers watch different parts of the recorded media
content during a past event. In this case, each peer keeps asking
other peers which media chunks are stored in which peers, and then
gets the required media from certain/selected peers.
To sum up, in essence, there are two important entities in P2P
streaming, i.e., trackers and peers in P2P streaming systems. PPSP is
targeted to standardize the signaling protocols in this tracker-based
architectures for supporting both live and VoD streaming.
In detail, PPSP designs a protocol for signaling between trackers and
peers (the PPSP "tracker protocol") and a signaling protocol for
communication among the peers (the PPSP "peer protocol") as shown in
Figure 1. The two protocols enable peers to receive streaming data
within the time constraints required by specific content items. The
tracker protocol handles the initial and periodic exchange of meta
information between trackers and peers, such as peer-list and content
information. The peer protocol controls the advertising and exchange
of media data between the peers.
Note that in the pull mode and hybrid pull-push mode, both tracker
protocol and peer protocol can be used; while in the push mode, only
tracker protocol is used.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
+------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +--------------------------------+ |
| | Tracker(Head Node) | |
| +--------------------------------+ |
| | ^ ^ |
|Tracker | | Tracker |Tracker |
|Protocol| | Procotol |Protocol |
| | | | |
| V | | |
| +---------+ Peer +---------+ |
| | Peer |<----------->| Peer | |
| +---------+ Protocol +---------+ |
| | ^ |
| | |Peer |
| | |Protocol |
| V | |
| +---------------+ |
| | Peer | |
| +---------------+ |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 PPSP System Architecture
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
5. Use cases of PPSP
5.1. Worldwide provision of open P2P live streaming services
The cooperative vendors can easily expand the broadcasting scale with
PPSP. In figure 2 shows the case that vendor A broadcasts the program
with the help of vendor B and vendor C for a wider coverage. The
interaction between vendor A's tracker and vendor B and vendor C's
super-nodes (SN in short) can be normalized using tracker protocol;
and peer protocol can be used among SNs/peers spread in different
vendors.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +------------------+ |
| +------------>| A's Tracker |<----------+ |
| | +------------------+ | |
| Tracker| ^ ^ | |
| Protocol| Tracker| |Tracker |Tracker |
| | Protocol| |Protocol |Protocol |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| v v v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ +------+ +------+ |
| | B's |<------->| B's | | C's | | C's | |
| | SN1 |Protocol | SN2 | | SN1 | | SN2 | |
| +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | |
| | | Peer Protocol Peer Protocol| | |
| Peer | +-------------+ +--------------+ |Peer |
| Procotol| | | |protocol|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| v v v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ +---------+ Peer +---------+ |
| | A's |<------> | B's | |A's |<------> |C's | |
| | User1|Protocol | User2| | User1 |Protocol | User2 | |
| +------+ +------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Cooperative Vendors Interaction
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
5.2. CDN supporting P2P streaming
This scenario is similar to use case 1 except that the intermediate
SNs are replaced by 3rd party CDN surrogates with PPSP. The P2P
streaming vendors A and B can rent CDN surrogates to provide higher
QoS services for VIP users than services provides by only ordinary
peers. The interaction among these network entities are shown in
Figure 3. The CDN nodes talk with the different trackers and peers
with the uniform Tracker and peer protocols. It can also communicate
with end users using HTTP for legacy equipments. The internal
interaction of CDN nodes can be executed by either original internal
protocol or new peer protocol. The latter is used when building a new
CDN system supporting streaming applications with low cost deploying
P2P delivery inside the network.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +-------------+ +--------------+ |
| +----->| A's Tracker | | B's Tracker |<---+ |
| | +-------------+ +--------------+ | |
| Tracker| ^ ^ ^ ^ | |
| Protocol| Tracker| |Tracker | |Tracker |Tracker |
| | Protocol| |Protocol| |Protocol |Protocol|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+| | +------+Internal+------+ |
| | CDN |<------>| CDN || | | CDN |<-----> | CDN | |
| | Node1|Protocol| Node2|| | | Node3|Protocol| Node4| |
| +------+ +------+| | +------+ +------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| | | Peer Protocol | | HTTP | | |
| Peer | +-------------+ | | +------+ | Peer |
| Procotol| | | | | Protocol |protocol|
| | | +-+ | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| v v v v v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ +---------+ Peer +---------+ |
| | A's |<------> | A's | |B's |<------> |B's | |
| | User1|Protocol | User2| | User3 |Protocol | User4 | |
| +------+ +------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3 CDN Supporting P2P Streaming
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
5.3. PPSP supporting cross-screen streaming in heterogeneous environment
In this scenario PC, Setbox/TV and mobile terminals from both fixed
network and mobile network share the content they store/cache. Peers
from heterogeneous networks
With PPSP Peers can identify the types of access networks, average
load, peer abilities and get to know what content other peers have
(potentially with the conversion of the content availability
expression in different networks) even in different network
conditions as shown in Figure 4. These information will play an
important role on selecting suitable peers, e.g., a PC or STB node is
more likely to be selected to provide stable content for mobile nodes;
a mobile peer within a high-load base station is unlikely to be
selected, which may lead to higher load on the base station.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Tracker Protocol +---------+ Tracker Protocol |
| +-------------> | Tracker |<------------------+ |
| | +---------+ | |
| | ^ | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| V | V |
| +------+ | +------------+ |
| | STB | Tracker Protocol |Mobile Phone| |
| +------+ | +------------+ |
| ^ | ^ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | V | |
| |Peer Protocol +---------+ Peer Protocol | |
| +-------------> | PC |<------------------+ |
| +---------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4 Heterogeneous P2P Streaming Interaction with PPSP
5.4. Supporting P2P streaming in cellular mobile network
In a cellular mobile environment like 3G or 4G, with the increase in
bandwidth and smart mobile terminal capabilities, P2P (including P2P
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
streaming) is easier to be realized than before. In a provincial
network of China Mobile, P2P has accounted for more than 30
percentage of the traffic, ranked second.
Note that the mobile terminals are not compulsorily to be peers. Here
they act as clients. Network peers who are deployed by the ISPs or
operators and mobile peers with WiFi connections are more likely to
be selected. For example, in 3GPP, there is a P2P CDS work item
working on the requirement of mobile operators to prefer use deployed
network-side equipments (e.g., serving gateways or GGSNs, one access
point from cellular mobile network to the Internet) to act as super-
peers when there are no enough eligible peers to realize P2P
streaming[P2P CDS]. Because they are deployed by the operators, the
stability and storage size are better guaranteed than ordinary peers.
Similar with case 5.3, PPSP tracker protocol will help to identify
and return the super-peers in the peer-list with preference. If
mobile terminals are not eligible to be peers, they can simply
receive data from these super-peers without contributing any data to
others.
5.5. Cache service supporting P2P streaming
As discussed in the Section 3, deploying cache nodes at the network
edges can greatly decrease the inter-network traffic and increase
user experience in streaming service.
With PPSP, the cache nodes can identify the P2P streaming genre even
it may include different applications. When a peer requests the
streaming data, cache detects the request and requests the frequent
visited content (or part of) to the original tracker as a normal peer.
The tracker replies with (outward) peers. After the cache connectes
with the peers, it can report what it cache to the provider's tracker
like a normal peer and serve other requesting peers inside to reduce
the cross-ISP traffic as shown in Figure 5. The cache nodes needn't
update their library when new applications supporting PPSP are
introduced, which enable the cache nodes spend less cost to support
more applications.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| 0:Tracker Protocol +---------+ |
| +----------------> | Tracker | |
| | +---------+ |
| | ^ |
| | | |
| | 2: | Tracker Protocol |
| | | |
| | | |
| | +---------|-------------------------------------|
| | | V |
| | | +---------+ |
| | +----------|---> | Cache |<-------------------+ |
| | | | +---------+ 1,4: Tracker/Peer| |
| | |3: Peer | Protocol | |
| | | Protocol | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| V V | V |
| +-----------+ | ISP Domain +------------+ |
| | Outward | | | Inside | |
| | Peer | | | Peer | |
| +-----------+ | +------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5 Cache Service Supporting Streaming with PPSP
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
6. Security Considerations
This document discusses the problem statement around peer-to-peer
streaming protocols without specifying the protocols. The protocol
specification is deferred to other documents under development in the
PPSP working group. However we believe it is important for the reader
to understand areas of security caused by the p2p nature of the
proposed solution. The main issue is the usage of untrusted entities
(peers) for service provisioning.
Malicious peers may, for example:
- Issue denial of service (DOS) attacks to the trackers by sending
large amount of requests with the tracker protocol;
- Issue fake information on behalf of other peers;
- Issue fake information about available content;
- Issue fake information about chunk availability;
Malicious peers/trackers may, for example:
- Issue reply instead of the regular tracker (man in the middle
attack).
The PPSP protocol specifications, e.g., the tracker protocol and the
peer protocol, will document the expected threats and how they will
be mitigated for each protocol, but also considerations on threats
and mitigations when combining both protocols in an application. This
will include privacy of the users, protection of the content
distribution, but not protection of the content by Digital Rights
Management (DRM).
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the following people who provided review,
feedback and suggestions to this document: M. Stiemerling; C. Schmidt;
D. Bryan; E. Marocco; V. Gurbani; R. Even; H. Zhang; L. Xiao; C.
Williams; V. Pasual; D. Zhang; J. Lei.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC 5693], Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem
Statement, E. Marocco et al,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5693/
9.2. Informative References
[Cisco] Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology,
2009-2014,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525
/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-
481360_ns827_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.html
[PPLive] www.pplive.com
[VoD] Yan Huang et al,Challenges, "Design and Analysis of a Large-
scale P2P-VoD System", Sigcomm08.
[CNN] www.cnn.com
[PPStream] www.ppstream.com
[UUSee] www.uusee.com
[CNTV] www.cntv.com
[Cirrus] labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/
[Akamai] Peer-to-Peer Systems, Rodrigo Rodrigues et al,
Communications of the ACM,Vol. 53 No. 10, Pages 72-82.
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/10/99498-peer-to-peer-
systems/fulltext.
[ChinaCache]
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/813722/rawflow_part
ners_with_chinacache_creating_asias_largest_p2p_powered_liv
e/
[Survey] Yong Liu et al, "A survey on peer-to-peer video streaming
systems", Peer to Peer Networking and
Applications (2008) Volume 1, Number 1,:18-28,Springer.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
[RayV] http://www.rayv.com
[Forcetech] http://www.forcetech.net/english/solutions
[CDN+P2P] H. Jiang et al,"Efficient Large-scale Content Distribution
with Combination of CDN and P2P Networks", International
Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, Vol.2, No.2,
April, 2009.
[HPTP] HPTP: Relieving the Tension between ISPs and P2P, Guobin Shen
et al, IPTPS 2007.
[Statistics] http://labs.chinamobile.com/news/48283
[P2P CDS] 3GPP TR 22.906, Study on IMS based peer-to-peer content
distribution services,http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-
info/22906.htm
[Mobile Streaming1] Streaming To Mobile Users In A Peer-to-Peer
Network,Jeonghun Noh et al,MOBIMEDIA '09.
[Mobile Streaming2] J. Peltotalo et al.,"A real-time peer-to-peer
streaming system for mobile networking environment", in
Proceedings of the INFOCOM and Workshop on Mobile Video
Delivery (MoVID '09), April 2009.
[PPLive Design] Y. Huang, T. Fu, D. Chiu, J. Lui, and C.
Huang ,"Challenges, design and analysis of a large-scale
p2p-vod system", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review,
38(4):375-388, 2008.
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Problem Statement of PPSP September 2011
Authors' Addresses
Yunfei Zhang
China Mobile Communication Corporation
zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com
Ning Zong
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
zongning@huawei.com
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
James Seng
PPLive
james.seng@pplive.com
Richard Yang
Yale University
yry@cs.yale.edu
zhang Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 24]
