CDNI                                                        R. Krishnan
Internet Draft                                   Brocade Communications
Intended status: Informational                            B. Khasnabish
Expires: January 2013                                   ZTE Corporation
                                                          July 30, 2012



      Traffic management models for http adaptive-streaming-aware CDN
                              Interconnection
                     draft-krishnan-cdni-tm-has-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
   as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.

   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.

   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."



Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


   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 Fail 30, 0000.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 0000 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document 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.

Abstract

   This document presents thoughts on the traffic management aspects of
   supporting HTTP Adaptive Streaming technologies in CDN
   Interconnection scenarios. Our intent is to recommend traffic
   management techniques which can offer the best adaptive streaming
   performance over CDN interconnections.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
   3. CDNi interface bandwidth challenges............................3
   4. CDNi interface traffic management..............................4
      4.1. WRED Configuration Example................................5
         4.1.1. Router buffering and queueing recommendations........7


Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


         4.1.2. IP DSCP and Queue size mapping for IPv4 traffic
         recommendations.............................................7
   5. References.....................................................8
      5.1. Normative References......................................8
      5.2. Informative References....................................8

                 1. Introduction

   HTTP Adaptive Streaming (HAS) is an umbrella term for various HTTP-
   based streaming technologies that allow a client to adaptively switch
   between multiple bitrates depending on current network conditions.  A
   defining aspect of HAS is that, since it is based on HTTP, it is a
   pull-based mechanism, with a client actively requesting content
   segments, instead of the content being pushed to the client by a
   server. The underlying protocol used by HTTP is TCP/IP. This document
   presents the challenges in CDNi interface bandwidth provisioning,
   given the heavy asymmetric usage of the network between peak and
   quiet hours. The document [I-D.brandenburg-cdni-has-03] recommends
   various models for adaptive streaming aware CDN interconnection. This
   document complements the above document by recommending traffic
   management techniques which can offer the best adaptive streaming
   performance over CDN interconnections during hours of congestion.

                 2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   This document reuses the terminology defined in:

      [I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement-06],

      [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements-03],

      [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework-00], and

      [I-D.ietf-cdni-use-cases-08].

                 3. CDNi interface bandwidth challenges

   Typically, the interface between CDNs is a long-haul backbone network
   where bandwidth is premium. The bandwidth needs of HAS is directly
   proportional to the number of active end users who are streaming
   video. The bandwidth requirements of HAS are quite asymmetric, with
   the bandwidth usage during peak family hours is substantially higher
   as compared to the normal hours. Caching in the CDN-I alleviates this


Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


   to a certain degree, but we could have network congestion in the
   following scenarios 1) During peak hours, in a pull model caching,
   the first copy of many HAS streams would be delivered. 2) Long-tail
   personalized content, which is not amenable to caching, is desired by
   the end user. A naive solution would be to dimension the CDNi
   bandwidth for the peak hour usage and projected user growth which can
   lead to an expensive backbone network infrastructure. By using
   traffic management techniques described below, this issue network
   congestion issue can be alleviated by to a great degree and the
   backbone network need not be dimensioned for peak usage.

                 4. CDNi interface traffic management

   The CDNi interface links, which are typically long haul, have much
   lower bandwidth as compared to the links in the CDN. As discussed in
   the previous section, there is potential for congestion in the CDNi
   interface links especially during peak hours. The underlying protocol
   used by HAS is TCP/IP. In the standard router configuration, the
   default   congestion avoidance behavior for TCP/IP traffic is tail
   drop. Tail drop causes global synchronization of TCP/IP hosts or in
   effect the end users of HAS. Global synchronization occurs as waves
   of congestion crest only to be followed by troughs during which the
   CDNi interface link(s) are not fully utilized. Global synchronization
   of TCP hosts, for example, can occur because packets are dropped all
   at once due to tail drop. Global synchronization manifests when
   multiple TCP hosts reduce their transmission rates in response to
   packet dropping, then increase their transmission rates once again
   when the congestion is reduced. This leads to poor adaptive streaming
   performance when the CDNi interface links are congested especially
   during peak hours.

   Enabling Random Early Discard (RED) [RFC2309] on the CDNi interface
   links for HAS traffic, results in better adaptive streaming
   performance when the CDNi interface links are congested especially
   during peak hours. The following explains the WRED behavior in
   detail. RED aims to control the average queue size by indicating to
   the end hosts when they should temporarily slow down transmission of
   packets. WRED takes advantage of the congestion control mechanism of
   TCP. By randomly dropping packets prior to periods of high
   congestion, RED tells the packet source to decrease its transmission
   rate. The packet source is using TCP, or in effect the HAS end user,
   will decrease its transmission rate until all the packets reach
   their destination, indicating that the congestion is cleared. TCP
   not only pauses, but it also restarts quickly and adapts its
   transmission rate to the rate that the network can support. RED


Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


   distributes losses in time and maintains normally low queue depth
   while absorbing spikes.

   Weighted Random Early Discard (WRED) is an improved version of RED
   which provides separate queue thresholds for different traffic
   classes, enabling the provision of different qualities of service for
   different traffic classes [RFC2474]. Using WRED, low priority HAS
   traffic may be dropped more frequently than high priority HAS traffic
   during periods of congestion. The example below demonstrates how WRED
   can be configured to improve HAS performance and offer differentiated
   services for different types of HAS traffic.

4.1. WRED Configuration Example

   As depicted in Figure 1, both CDN-A and CDN-B establish
   interconnections with CDN-C that acts as a dCDN.  Thus, CDN-C will
   cache the content for CDN-A and CDN-B.  When both CDN provider A and
   CDN provider B have agreements with the same CSP for content
   delivery, CDN-C may be required by CDN-A and CDN-B separately to
   retrieve and cache the same content from the CSP. WRED is enabled on
   the CDNi interface between CDN-A <-> CDN-C and CDN-B <-> CDN-C. The
   router configuration is depicted below.


























Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


                                             +-------+

                         |  CSP  |

                         +-------+

                        /         \

             ,--,--,--./           \,--,--,--.

          ,-'          `-.       ,-'          `-.

         ( CDN Provider A )     ( CDN Provider B )

          `-.  (CDN-A) ,-'       `-. (CDN-B)  ,-'

             `--'--'--'             `--'--'--'

                      \\            //

      WRED <---------- \\,--,--,--.// --------> WRED

                      ,-'          `-.

                     ( CDN Provider C )

                      `-. (CDN-C)  ,-'

                         `--'--'--'

                              |

                       +------------+

                       | User Agent |

                       +------------+

   === CDN Interconnect

   Figure 1 Interconnected CDNs with WRED enabled across CDNi








Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


4.1.1. Router buffering and queueing recommendations

   Amount of buffers needed = Round Trip Time (RTT) x link capacity of
   bottleneck link; in this case, the bottleneck link is typically the
   CDNi link

   The is a separate queue per <output port, priority>; typically there
   are 8 priorities

4.1.2. IP DSCP and Queue size mapping for IPv4 traffic recommendations

   Map HAS traffic to a IP DSCP Assured Forwarding (AF) class, e.g.
   class 3 (IP precedence 3)

   High priority HAS traffic

      Marked with low drop precedence e.g. AF31

      Queue threshold to trigger random packet drop - high value

      Drop probability - low value

   Medium priority HAS traffic

      Marked with medium drop precedence e.g. AF32

      Queue threshold to trigger random packet drop - medium value

      Drop probability - medium value

   Low priority HAS traffic

      Marked with high drop precedence e.g. AF33

      Queue threshold to trigger random packet drop - low value

      Drop probability - high value










Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


                 5. References

5.1. Normative References

                      [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
                            Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC
                            2119, March 1997.

                      [2] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors),
                            "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications:
                            ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail Consortium
                            and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
             Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

5.2. Informative References

            [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework]L. Peterson, "Framework for CDN
   Interconnection", April 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement]B. Niven-Jenkins, "Content
   Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNi) Problem
   Statement", May 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements]K. Leung, "Content Distribution Network
   Interconnection (CDNi) Requirements", December 2011.

   [RFC2309] B. Braden, "Recommendations on Queue Management and
   Congestion Avoidance", April 1998

   [RFC 2474] K. Nichols, "Definition of the Differentiated Services
   Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", December 1998

Authors' Addresses

   Ram Krishnan

   Brocade Communications

   San Jose, 95134, USA




Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  TM Models for HAS aware CDN Interconnection  July 2012


   Phone: +001-408-406-7890

   Email: ramk@brocade.com



   Bhumip Khasnabish

   ZTE Corporation

   New Jersey, 07960, USA



   Phone: +001-781-752-8003

   Email: bhumip.khasnabish@zteusa.com
































Krishnan, et al.       Expires January 30, 2013                [Page 9]