draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-07.txt 
MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore
Internet Draft Robert Sayko Internet Draft Robert Sayko
Intended status: BCP AT&T Intended status: BCP AT&T
Expires: May 15, 2017 Greg Shepherd Expires: August 1, 2017 Greg Shepherd
Toerless Eckert Toerless Eckert
Cisco Cisco
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
Brocade Brocade
November 15, 2016 February 1, 2017
Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-06.txt draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-07.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 15, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
Enabled.......................................................10 Enabled.......................................................10
3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through
AD-2..........................................................12 AD-2..........................................................12
4. Supporting Functionality......................................14 4. Supporting Functionality......................................14
4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15
4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................16 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................16
4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....17 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....17
4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................17 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................17
4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines
..............................................................19 ..............................................................20
4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................20 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................20
4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines.................21 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines.................21
4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................22 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................22
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...25 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...25
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics...............................25 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics...............................25
6. Security Considerations.......................................26 6. Security Considerations.......................................26
7. IANA Considerations...........................................27 7. IANA Considerations...........................................27
8. Conclusions...................................................27 8. Conclusions...................................................27
9. References....................................................27 9. References....................................................27
9.1. Normative References.....................................27 9.1. Normative References.....................................27
9.2. Informative References...................................28 9.2. Informative References...................................28
10. Acknowledgments..............................................29 10. Acknowledgments..............................................29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Several types of applications (e.g., live video streaming, software Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live
downloads) are well suited for delivery via multicast means. The use video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery
of multicast for delivering such applications offers significant via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such
savings for utilization of resources in any given administrative content/data offers significant savings for utilization of resources
domain. End user demand for such applications is growing. Often, in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such
this requires transporting such applications across administrative content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the
domains via inter-domain peering points. content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering
points.
The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold: The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold:
o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for
setting up multicast-based delivery of applications across inter- setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data
domain peering points via a set of use cases. across inter-domain peering points via a set of use cases.
o Catalog all required information exchange between the o Catalog all required information exchange between the
administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery. This administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery. This
enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support
inter-domain peering with multicast. inter-domain peering with multicast.
The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows: The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows:
o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point" o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point"
refers to an interface between two networks/administrative refers to an interface between two networks/administrative
domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A
Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering
point. point.
o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native
multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2. multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2.
o It is understood that several protocols are available for this o It is understood that several protocols are available for this
purpose including PIM-SM [RFC4609], Protocol Independent purpose including PIM-SM [RFC4609], Protocol Independent
Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761], Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC7761],
Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376], and
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810]. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC3810].
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the
multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under
this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the
receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to
the source without the need of invoking an intermediate the source without the need of invoking an intermediate
Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved
threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in
[RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is [RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is
recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter- recommended to use only SSM protocols; the setup of inter-
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
between many operators, is not in scope for this document. between many operators, is not in scope for this document.
This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering
process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement
is beyond the scope of this document. is beyond the scope of this document.
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport
A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows: A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a
peering point. peering point.
o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end
native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by
one of two possible tunnel types: one of two possible tunnel types:
o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784]
allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450]. o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450].
o The application stream originates at a source in Domain 1. The o A service provider controls one or more application sources in
source IP address is known. AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more
o An End User associated with Domain 2 requests the application. (S,G)s. It is assumed that the service being provided is
It is assumed that the application is suitable for delivery via suitable for delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming
multicast means (e.g., live steaming of major events, software of popular events, software downloads to many devices, etc.),
downloads to large numbers of end user devices, etc.) and that the packet streams will be part of a suitable
o The request is communicated to the application source which multicast transport protocol.
provides the relevant multicast delivery information to the EU o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which
device. This information is in the form of appropriate runs an application client compatible with the service
metadata. At a minimum, this metadata includes the {Source, provider's application source.
Group} or (S,G) information relevant to the multicast stream. o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to
It may also contain additional information that the application receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU.
client can use to locate the source and join the stream. The The mechanisms by which the application client learns the
delivery method by which the source transmits this information appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the
is determined via arrangements between the source and the two application, and are out of scope for this document.
Administrative Domains. The description of the delivery method
and the format of the metadata is out of scope for this
document.
o The application client in the EU device then joins the
multicast stream distributed by the application source in
domain 1 utilizing the (S,G) information provided in the
manifest file.
Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier
1 network operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network 1 network operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network
operated by a single customer. The peering point architecture and operated by a single customer. The peering point architecture and
requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the
Enterprise case. Enterprise case.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for
the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is
described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise
network possibility will be described in this section. A network possibility will be described in this section. A
comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be
exchanged between the two domains to support various functions exchanged between the two domains to support various functions
enabling the application transport is provided in section 4. enabling the application transport is provided in section 4.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast
The transport of applications using multicast requires that the The transport of applications using multicast requires that the
inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process. inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process.
There are five possible Use Cases for consideration. There are five Use Cases for consideration in this document.
3.1. Native Multicast 3.1. Native Multicast
This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two
administrative domains and the peering point is also native administrative domains and the peering point is also native
multicast enabled - Figure 1. multicast enabled - Figure 1.
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System) AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System)
AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source
BR = Border Router BR = Border Router
I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP) I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP)
I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection
Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast
Advantages of this configuration are: Advantages of this configuration are:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains. o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains.
o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when
compared to unicast transmissions. compared to unicast transmissions.
From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with
native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
in AD-2 is that it does not have the ability to count the number of 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 End Users as well as the transmitted bytes delivered to them. This
information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and
operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by
the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for
generating this information need to be robust enough such that all generating this information need to be robust enough such that all
pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator
are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 44
to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted by contract. to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted by contract.
d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End Users d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End Users
in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in
the application layer. The precise nature and formats of the the application layer. The precise nature and formats of the
collected information will be determined by directives from the collected information will be determined by directives from the
source owner and the domain operators. source owner and the domain operators.
e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should minimally follow e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should minimally follow
guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
[BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control- [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control-
plane and data-plane are described in section 6. plane and data-plane are described in section 6.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel
The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case. The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case.
There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the
peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and
AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing
Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast
protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is
basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP
multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 47
o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration. o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration.
o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting. o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting.
o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up. o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the
following: following:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use
Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows: Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows:
e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering
points to support multicast delivery between domains. points to support multicast delivery between domains.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server) f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server)
configuration in the source network is such that it only configuration in the source network is such that it only
advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the
entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery
of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g., of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g.,
content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership). content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership).
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
Enabled Enabled
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 44
AR = AMT Relay AR = AMT Relay
AG = AMT Gateway AG = AMT Gateway
I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection
Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1. o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1.
o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following: implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
the peering point. the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies. policies.
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router 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 technology cannot count the number of end users or the number of
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the
(S, G) information from the EU. (S, G) information from the EU.
3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled 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 In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not
multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD- multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD-
2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in 2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in
Figure 3. Figure 3.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \ / \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | | | | +----+ | | |
| | | +------+ | | | +----+ | | | +------+ | | | +----+
| | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G| | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+ | | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across
the peering point. the peering point.
o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing
policies. policies.
o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also 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. able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced
into the transport path. into the transport path.
o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU
Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD- Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD-
1. 1.
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
G) information to the Gateway for this purpose. G) information to the Gateway for this purpose.
e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for
the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast
streams delivered to End Users in AD-2. streams delivered to End Users in AD-2.
3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through 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: This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
/ AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \
/ (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \
/ \ / Enabled) \ / \ / Enabled) \
| +----+ | |+--+ +--+ | | +----+ | |+--+ +--+ |
| | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+ | | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+
| | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G| | | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G|
| | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+ | | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+
\ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ / \ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ /
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and an AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and an
AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point
(node AGAR1 in Figure 4). (node AGAR1 in Figure 4).
o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT 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. 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 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 other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel I2
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in
Figure 4. Figure 4.
o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in
device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2: 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 e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node
AGAR2. AGAR2.
The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
4. Supporting Functionality 4. Supporting Functionality
Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point
that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in
this section. Critical information parameters that need to be this section. Critical information parameters that need to be
exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with
guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for
consideration are as follows. consideration are as follows.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines
The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the
interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The
following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be
agreed to between the two administrative domains to support agreed to between the two administrative domains to support
multicast delivery. multicast delivery.
o Number of Peering Points. o Number of Peering Points.
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for
provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to support provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to support
multicast delivery. multicast delivery.
4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines
The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that
the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal" the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal"
source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically: source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes
any unicast portion of the delivery, and any unicast portion of the delivery, and
o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance. o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance.
This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual
methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless, methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless,
the routing solution is expected to be: the routing solution is expected to be:
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the
source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also contain source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also contain
alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast
address of the stream. address of the stream.
o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast
stream [RFC4604]. stream [RFC4604].
To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following: To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points. o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points.
o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity and o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity and
Utilization. Utilization.
o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper
multicast delivery across the peering points. multicast delivery across the peering points.
4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast
traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will
receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and
will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT
Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast
packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway. packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway.
In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and
activity statistics collection. This results in moving the activity statistics collection. This results in moving the
replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding
unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication
is still required for each requesting endpoint within the is still required for each requesting endpoint within the
unicast-only network. unicast-only network.
o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an on End-Point - o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an on End-Point -
this may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The this may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The
AMT Gateway receives join and leave requests from the AMT Gateway receives join and leave requests from the
Application via an Application Programming Interface (API). In Application via an Application Programming Interface (API). In
skipping to change at page 18, line 35 skipping to change at page 18, line 35
point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is
established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned
element. The two ADs can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay element. The two ADs can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay
Anycast addresses with each other - though they may alternately Anycast addresses with each other - though they may alternately
decide to simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be decide to simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be
an optimal solution in terms of scalability. an optimal solution in terms of scalability.
Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 describe more complicated AMT situations as 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 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. needs to be able to setup an AMT tunnel in the most optimal manner.
Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT There are many methods by which relay selection can be done
Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the including the use of DNS based queries and static lookup tables
multicast topology of the source. An example of a basic delivery [RFC7450]. The choice of the method is implementation dependent and
via an AMT Multicast process for these two Use Cases is as follows: 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
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 o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The
metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an
ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested
stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the
group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S"
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the
multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream
originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate
delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of
the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream
becomes unavailable. becomes unavailable.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information
provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in
order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay. 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 o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a
specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will
typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo- typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo-
address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to
the source. the source.
skipping to change at page 19, line 44 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
protocol messages). protocol messages).
o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join 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 the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed
to that stream. to that stream.
o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel
between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content
to the EU. to the EU.
Note: Further routing discussion on optimal method to find "best AMT IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
Relay/GW combination" and information exchange between AD's to be
provided.
4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines
Back Office refers to the following: Back Office refers to the following:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery
of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs. of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs.
o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering, o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering,
provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc. provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc.
4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines
Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be
provisioned as follows: provisioned as follows:
skipping to change at page 20, line 46 skipping to change at page 21, line 4
Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across
many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native
multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then: 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 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 from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or
AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source). AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source).
o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a 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 client download site (note: this could be an Application Source
site). If provided by the Application Source, then this 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).
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
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 o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2
AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group
addresses for streams it is allowed to join. addresses for streams it is allowed to join.
o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to 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 locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and
shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's
multicast source. multicast source.
Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are
stated as follows. stated as follows.
skipping to change at page 22, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, line 5
associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications. associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications.
Supporting guidelines are as follows: Supporting guidelines are as follows:
o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master
account. account.
o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally
protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple
accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g. accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g.
customer accounts, security accounts, etc. customer accounts, security accounts, etc.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines
Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of
interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged
between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows. between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows.
AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples
of log types include the following: of log types include the following:
skipping to change at page 23, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
agreement). agreement).
4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines
Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to
multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided
by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources
(metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated (metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated
guidelines are as follows: guidelines are as follows:
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service
performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides
relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to
create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the multicast create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the multicast
application source. application source.
o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be used 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 to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example, AD-2 may
permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 multicast service permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 multicast service
skipping to change at page 24, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, line 5
difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem by rerouting difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem by rerouting
the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If the fix is not the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If the fix is not
successful and multicast service delivery degrades, then AD-2 successful and multicast service delivery degrades, then AD-2
needs to report the issue to AD-1. needs to report the issue to AD-1.
o When problem notification is received from a multicast o When problem notification is received from a multicast
application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the
problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If 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 the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting information necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting information
include the following: include the following:
o Kind of problem(s). o Kind of problem(s).
o Starting point & duration of problem(s). o Starting point & duration of problem(s).
o Conditions in which problem(s) occur. o Conditions in which problem(s) occur.
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data. o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data.
o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer
(CP). (CP).
o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the problem 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 has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to verify and
validate the success of the fix. validate the success of the fix.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the
multicast application source provider may have to be compensated multicast application source provider may have to be compensated
by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-2 by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-2
based on the contract. based on the contract.
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines
There are multiple options for instituting reliability There are multiple options for instituting reliability
architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should
skipping to change at page 26, line 5 skipping to change at page 26, line 5
troubleshooting commands in a secure manner. troubleshooting commands in a secure manner.
The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of
this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described
in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general
communications issues are stated as follows. communications issues are stated as follows.
o Appropriate communications channels will be established between o Appropriate communications channels will be established between
the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic
troubleshooting. troubleshooting.
o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open
issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods
could be established depending on the severity of the could be established depending on the severity of the
identified trouble. identified trouble.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 5
example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to
ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged
between them. between them.
Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content
is done at the application layer between the client application and is done at the application layer between the client application and
the source. This may involve some kind of token authentication 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 is done at the application layer independently of the two AD's. If
there are problems related to failure of token authentication when there are problems related to failure of token authentication when
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating
proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end
servers querying the multicast application source provider's token servers querying the multicast application source provider's token
authentication server are communicating properly) should be authentication server are communicating properly) should be
considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this
document. document.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
No considerations identified in this document
8. Conclusions 8. Conclusions
This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case
scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across
peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of
guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases. guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases.
For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is
recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the
various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in
skipping to change at page 28, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 49
[RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol, [RFC3376] B. Cain, et al, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002 Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002
[RFC3618] B. Fenner, et al, "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol", [RFC3618] B. Fenner, et al, "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol",
RFC 3618, October 2003 RFC 3618, October 2003
[RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC3810] R. Vida and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016
[RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", [RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 4271, January 2006 RFC 4271, January 2006
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
[RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management
Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery
Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604,
August 2006 August 2006
[RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse [RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements", Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements",
RFC 4609, August 2006 RFC 4609, August 2006
[RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450, [RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
skipping to change at page 29, line 5 skipping to change at page 29, line 5
[MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D [MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D
draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000 draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000
[Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code [Traceroute] http://traceroute.org/#source%20code
[draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version [draft-MTraceroute] H. Asaeda, K, Meyer, and W. Lee, "Mtrace Version
2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace- 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast", draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-
v2-16, October 2016, work in progress v2-16, October 2016, work in progress
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points November 2016 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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Percy S. Tarapore Percy S. Tarapore
AT&T AT&T
Phone: 1-732-420-4172 Phone: 1-732-420-4172
Email: tarapore@att.com Email: tarapore@att.com
Robert Sayko Robert Sayko
AT&T AT&T
 End of changes. 51 change blocks. 
85 lines changed or deleted 108 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/