draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-08.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-09.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: August 2, 2017 Greg Shepherd Expires: January 17, 2018 Greg Shepherd
Toerless Eckert
Cisco Cisco
Toerless Eckert
Futurewei Technologies
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
SupportVectors SupportVectors
February 2, 2017 July 17, 2017
Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-08.txt draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-09.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 August 2, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 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
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM) This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
process. process.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction .................................................. 3
2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport.......4 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport ...... 4
3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast..........6 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast ......... 6
3.1. Native Multicast..........................................6 3.1. Native Multicast ......................................... 6
3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel.....................8 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel .................... 8
3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast
Enabled........................................................9 Enabled ....................................................... 9
3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast 3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast
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
..............................................................20 ............................................................. 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
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines .. 25
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics .............................. 25
6. Security Considerations ...................................... 26
7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 27
8. Conclusions .................................................. 27
9. References ................................................... 27
9.1. Normative References .................................... 27
9.2. Informative References .................................. 28
10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 28
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 1. Introduction
4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...25
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics...............................25
6. Security Considerations.......................................26
7. IANA Considerations...........................................27
8. Conclusions...................................................27
9. References....................................................27
9.1. Normative References.....................................27
9.2. Informative References...................................28
10. Acknowledgments..............................................29
1. Introduction
Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live Content and data from several types of applications (e.g., live
video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery video streaming, software downloads) are well suited for delivery
via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such via multicast means. The use of multicast for delivering such
content/data offers significant savings for utilization of resources content/data offers significant savings for utilization of resources
in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such in any given administrative domain. End user demand for such
content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the content/data is growing. Often, this requires transporting the
content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering content/data across administrative domains via inter-domain peering
points. 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 application content/data setting up multicast-based delivery of application content/data
across inter-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.
enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support This enables operators to initiate necessary processes to
inter-domain peering with multicast. support 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 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-
domain peering for ASM (Any-Source Multicast) is not in scope domain peering for ASM (Any-Source Multicast) is not in scope
for this document. for this document.
o AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols. The o AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols. The
use of different protocols is beyond the scope of this use of different protocols is beyond the scope of this
document. document.
o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the
peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not
multicast enabled. It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be multicast enabled. It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be
available to a client for multicast delivery. The selection of available to a client for multicast delivery. The selection of
an optimal AMT relay by a client is out of scope for this an optimal AMT relay by a client is out of scope for this
document. Note that AMT use is necessary only when native document. Note that AMT use is necessary only when native
multicast is unavailable in the peering point (Use Case 3.3) or multicast is unavailable in the peering point (Use Case 3.3) or
in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and
3.5). 3.5).
o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the
application level and is not considered to be a networking application level and is not considered to be a networking
issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or
inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document. inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document.
o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only
considered within the context of a cooperative process between considered within the context of a cooperative process between
the two domains. the two domains.
Thus, the primary purpose of this document is to describe a scenario Thus, the primary purpose of this document is to describe a scenario
where two ADs interconnect via a direct connection to each other. where two ADs interconnect via a direct connection to each other.
Security and operational aspects for exchanging traffic on a public Security and operational aspects for exchanging traffic on a public
Internet Exchange Point (IXP) with a large shared broadcast domain Internet Exchange Point (IXP) with a large shared broadcast domain
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 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 A service provider controls one or more application sources in o A service provider controls one or more application sources in
AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more AD-1 which will send multicast IP packets for one or more
(S,G)s. It is assumed that the service being provided is (S,G)s. It is assumed that the service being provided is
suitable for delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming suitable for delivery via multicast (e.g. live video streaming
of popular events, software downloads to many devices, etc.), of popular events, software downloads to many devices, etc.),
and that the packet streams will be part of a suitable and that the packet streams will be part of a suitable
multicast transport protocol. multicast transport protocol.
o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which o An End User (EU) controls a device connected to AD-2, which
runs an application client compatible with the service runs an application client compatible with the service
provider's application source. provider's application source.
o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to o The application client joins appropriate (S,G)s in order to
receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU. receive the data necessary to provide the service to the EU.
The mechanisms by which the application client learns the The mechanisms by which the application client learns the
appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the appropriate (S,G)s are an implementation detail of the
application, and are out of scope for this document. application, and are out of scope for this document.
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.
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 Use Cases for consideration in this document. 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.
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
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:
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.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended as a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended
a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility. as a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.
b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled network b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled
environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly by the network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated
two domains to permit the transit of non-rate adaptive multicast accordingly by the two domains to permit the transit of non-
traffic. If this is not the case, then it is recommended that the rate adaptive multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then
multicast traffic should support rate-adaption. it is recommended that the multicast traffic should support
rate-adaption.
c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two domains c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two
is typically determined by local policies associated with each domains is typically determined by local policies associated
domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider and AD-2 is an with each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider
enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies for traffic and AD-2 is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies
delivery to, but not traffic reception from AD-2. Another example for traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from AD-2.
is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers specified content Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers
to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted by contract. specified content 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
in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in Users in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available
the application layer. The precise nature and formats of the capabilities in the application layer. The precise nature and
collected information will be determined by directives from the formats of the collected information will be determined by
source owner and the domain operators. directives from the 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
[BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control- [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast
plane and data-plane are described in section 6. control-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
the GRE tunnel. the GRE tunnel.
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains although not as o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains although not
efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case. as efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case.
o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream
compared to unicast transmissions. when compared to unicast transmissions.
o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD-1 o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD-
and/or AD-2. 1 and/or AD-2.
o GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to o GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to
implement. implement.
Disadvantages of this configuration: Disadvantages of this configuration:
o Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the o Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the
number of end users or the number bytes transmitted. number of end users or the number bytes transmitted.
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:
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
Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be
native multicast enabled here; however the peering point is not. The native multicast enabled here; however the peering point is not. The
peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. The peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. The
basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2. basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2.
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
skipping to change at page 9, line 40 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
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:
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
bytes transmitted to all end users. of bytes transmitted to all end users.
o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be introduced o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be
into the path if these services are not incorporated in the introduced into the path if these services are not incorporated
existing routing nodes. in the existing routing nodes.
o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically select o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically
the optimal AR. select the optimal AR.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
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. In addition, Case 3.1. In addition,
e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be
configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery
between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically
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 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 +----+
\ +----+ / \ / \ +----+ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\ / \ / \ / \ /
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
AS = Application Multicast Source AS = Application Multicast Source
AR = AMT Relay AR = AMT Relay
EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast
Enabled AD-2. Enabled AD-2.
Figure 3 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway Figure 3 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway
This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the
application through AD-2. The total number of AMT tunnels would be application through AD-2. The total number of AMT tunnels would be
equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application. equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application.
The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT
tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the
data usage associated with each End User. data usage associated with each End User.
Advantages of this configuration: Advantages of this configuration:
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:
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 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.
Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use
Case 3.1. Case 3.1.
d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such
that the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the that the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the
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 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 13, line 29 skipping to change at page 13, line 27
AS = Application Source AS = Application Source
AR = AMT Relay in AD-1 AR = AMT Relay in AD-1
AGAR1 = AMT Gateway/Relay node in AD-2 across Peering Point AGAR1 = AMT Gateway/Relay node in AD-2 across Peering Point
I1 = AMT Tunnel Connecting AR in AD-1 to GW in AGAR1 in AD-2 I1 = AMT Tunnel Connecting AR in AD-1 to GW in AGAR1 in AD-2
AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge
I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2 I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2
EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device
I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2 I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2
Figure 4 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway Figure 4 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway
Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire
network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1 network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1
through the peering point. Depending on the number of End Users, through the peering point. Depending on the number of End Users,
there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels
- and unicast streams - through the peering point. This situation - and unicast streams - through the peering point. This situation
can be alleviated as follows: can be alleviated as follows:
o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of
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
AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point an AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering
(node AGAR1 in Figure 4). point (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 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 in Figure 4.
linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in
Figure 4.
o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in 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
total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced
thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a single thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a single
unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly, an unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly, an
unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4. However, unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4. However,
this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be dynamically this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be dynamically
skipping to change at page 14, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 39
that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT
nodes in AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes in AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT
nodes as appropriate. The application client in the EU device is nodes as appropriate. The application client in the EU device is
expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this
purpose. 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.
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 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.
o Peering Point Addresses and Locations. o Peering Point Addresses and Locations.
o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared with o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared
other services. with other services.
o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or via o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or
another ISP. via another ISP.
o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will be o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will
used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at these be used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at
points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4271] and MBGP these points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4271] and
[RFC4271]. MBGP [RFC4271].
o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then there o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then
needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth reserved there needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth
for multicast delivery. When determining the appropriate reserved for multicast delivery. When determining the
bandwidth allocation, parties should consider that design of a appropriate bandwidth allocation, parties should consider that
multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming which is design of a multicast protocol suitable for live video
consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41], especially streaming which is consistent with Congestion Control
in the presence of potentially malicious receivers, is still an Principles [BCP41], especially in the presence of potentially
open research problem. malicious receivers, is still an open research problem.
o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be
specified in an SLA. specified in an SLA.
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
multicast delivery. support 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 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:
o Scalable, o Scalable,
o Avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, and o Avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, and
o Be robust enough to achieve high reliability and automatically o Be robust enough to achieve high reliability and automatically
adjust to changes/problems in the multicast infrastructure. adjust to changes/problems in the multicast infrastructure.
For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as
possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some
cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different
peering points, but that is entirely an implementation issue. peering points, but that is entirely an implementation issue.
4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects
Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains
coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their
network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An
example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across
two administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the two administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the
interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled: interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled:
o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a
subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This information is in subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This information is in
the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the
EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and
also additional information for the application about the source also additional information for the application about the source
location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G" location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G"
data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the 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 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
Utilization. and 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
If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and
both ADs are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to both ADs are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to
provision a GRE tunnel between the two ADs - see Use Case 3.2.2. provision a GRE tunnel between the two ADs - see Use Case 3.2.2.
The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network
engineering decision, but generally will be between the border engineering decision, but generally will be between the border
routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source
skipping to change at page 17, line 36 skipping to change at page 17, line 34
The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1 The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1
to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points. to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points.
4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels
Unlike Native (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast environment is Unlike Native (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast environment is
more complex. It presents a dual layered problem because there are more complex. It presents a dual layered problem because there are
two criteria that should be simultaneously met: two criteria that should be simultaneously met:
o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has
multicast connectivity to the content source, and multicast connectivity to the content source, and
o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance. o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance.
There are essentially two components to the AMT specification: There are essentially two components to the AMT specification:
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
traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication
is still required for each requesting endpoint within the
traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding unicast-only network.
unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication
is still required for each requesting endpoint within the
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
this manner, the Gateway allows the endpoint to conduct itself this manner, the Gateway allows the endpoint to conduct itself
as a true Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate as a true Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate
AMT messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel AMT messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel
(across the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay. (across the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay.
The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that
are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled ADs. An AMT are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled ADs. An AMT
tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the
peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering
point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is 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
skipping to change at page 18, line 49 skipping to change at page 18, line 46
of scope for this document; it is for further study. of scope for this document; it is for further study.
An illustrative example of a relay selection based on DNS queries 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 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 described here. Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows
for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest for all AMT Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest
edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is edge of the multicast topology of the source. Note that this is
strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network strictly illustrative; the choice of the method is up to the network
operators. The basic process is as follows: 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.
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.
o If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the o If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the
AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to
the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing
choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU. (Note choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU. (Note
that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is
inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via
provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this
document.) document.)
o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP
address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required). address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required).
Variations may exist as well. Variations may exist as well.
o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three- o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three-
way handshake with the AMT Relay. way handshake with the AMT Relay.
o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT
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.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
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:
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:
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based
delivery across ADs. delivery across ADs.
o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between
all supporting back-offices of the ADs as appropriate. This all supporting back-offices of the ADs as appropriate. This
includes activating proper security treatment for these back- includes activating proper security treatment for these back-
office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate. office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate.
o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support
these. these.
Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain
delivery are as follows. delivery are as follows.
The ability to receive requested application via multicast is The ability to receive requested application via multicast is
triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata. Hence, this triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata. Hence, this
metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and
unicast fallback if applicable. AD-2 must enable the delivery of unicast fallback if applicable. AD-2 must enable the delivery of
this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this
purpose. purpose.
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
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 provided (assuming multiple possible clients).
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.
Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer
care access to their own systems. care access to their own systems.
AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility
to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by
AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g. AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g.
to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways: to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways:
o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that
operations and customer care continue using their own systems. This operations and customer care continue using their own systems.
requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate This requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate
provisioning of necessary resources. provisioning of necessary resources.
o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access
directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional provisioning directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional
in these systems will be needed to provide necessary access. provisioning in these systems will be needed to provide necessary
Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s to support access. Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s
this option. to support this option.
4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines
All interactions between pairs of ADs can be discovered and/or be All interactions between pairs of ADs can be discovered and/or be
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 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:
o Usage information logs at aggregate level. o Usage information logs at aggregate level.
o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level. o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level.
o Grouped or sequenced application access. o Grouped or sequenced application access.
performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support
potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of
aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets
of software download. of software download.
o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement
(with additional detail potentially provided during security (with additional detail potentially provided during security
events, by agreement). events, by agreement).
o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting. o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting.
o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for
shared troubleshooting. shared troubleshooting.
o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared
troubleshooting. troubleshooting.
The two ADs may supply additional security logs to each other as The two ADs may supply additional security logs to each other as
agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following: agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following:
o Information related to general security-relevant activity which o Information related to general security-relevant activity which
may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as
types and counts of attacks detected, related source information, types and counts of attacks detected, related source information,
related target information, etc. related target information, etc.
o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with
additional detail potentially provided during security events, by additional detail potentially provided during security events, by
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 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
application source. multicast 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
to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example, AD-2 may used to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example,
permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 multicast service AD-2 may permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2
footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its own probes and relay multicast service footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its
performance information back to AD-1. own probes and relay performance information back to AD-1.
o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1 may o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1
have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA may have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA
agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2 agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2
if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network. if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network.
Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole) Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole)
provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source
provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service
problems occur. EU's direct their complaints to the source provider; problems occur. EU's direct their complaints to the source provider;
in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The
responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1 responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1
will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its
own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools
to monitor multicast service status in its own network. to monitor multicast service status in its own network.
o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service
monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of
monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to inform monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to
each other when multicast delivery problems are detected. inform each other when multicast delivery problems are
detected.
o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example, o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example,
for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be experiencing for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be
difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem by rerouting experiencing difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem
the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If the fix is not by rerouting the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If
successful and multicast service delivery degrades, then AD-2 the fix is not successful and multicast service delivery
needs to report the issue to AD-1. degrades, then AD-2 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
necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 information include the following:
necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting information
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.
o IP address blocks of affected users. o IP address blocks of affected users.
o ISPs of affected users. o ISPs of affected users.
o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop. o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop.
o Locations of affected EUs. o Locations of affected EUs.
o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for multicast o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for
service delivery problems. Examples of various factors for multicast service delivery problems. Examples of various
consideration include: factors for consideration include:
o Verification that the service configuration matches the o Verification that the service configuration matches the
product features. product features.
o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer
problems and resource troubles into a single root service problems and resource troubles into a single root service
problem. problem.
o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving
consideration to problem impact, service level agreement, consideration to problem impact, service level agreement,
etc. etc.
o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a
series of tests over a period of time. series of tests over a period of time.
o Analysis of test results. o Analysis of test results.
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
has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to verify and
validate the success of the fix.
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017 o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the
problem has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to
verify and validate the success of the fix.
o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the 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
by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-2 compensated by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be
based on the contract. compensated by AD-2 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
work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast
application source providers. application source providers.
Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by
provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means. provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means.
5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics
Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should
have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast
troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly. troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly.
Issues may become apparent or identified either through network Issues may become apparent or identified either through network
monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described
in section 4.4. in section 4.4.
It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected
according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However, according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However,
skipping to change at page 25, line 51 skipping to change at page 25, line 49
and peering status. Software implementations for this purpose is and peering status. Software implementations for this purpose is
readily available [Traceroute], [draft-MTraceroute] and can be readily available [Traceroute], [draft-MTraceroute] and can be
easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast easily extended to provide access to commonly-used multicast
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
facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic
IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points February 2017
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
From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected
to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to
registered and authenticated end users. Additionally: registered and authenticated end users. Additionally:
o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement
if dedicated for multicast delivery. if dedicated for multicast delivery.
o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security
breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for
shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic
over alternated peering points. It is also expected that over alternated peering points. It is also expected that
appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of securing appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of
the identified breach. securing the identified breach.
DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication
should be the responsibility of the multicast application source should be the responsibility of the multicast application source
provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate
agreements with the source provider. agreements with the source provider.
Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication
and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with
normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security
and network security. and network security.
skipping to change at page 27, line 4 skipping to change at page 27, line 4
point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs. For point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs. For
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 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 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
AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as
appropriate. Section 4.3 provides an overview of one method that appropriate. Section 4.3 provides an overview of one method that
finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an
Anycast IP address for AMT Relays. Anycast IP address for AMT Relays.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina, [RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000
[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",
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
[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 28, line 40
[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 February 2017 10. Acknowledgments
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
suggestions, comments, and corrections: suggestions, comments, and corrections:
Mikael Abrahamsson Mikael Abrahamsson
Hitoshi Asaeda Hitoshi Asaeda
Dale Carder Dale Carder
Tim Chown Tim Chown
Leonard Giuliano Leonard Giuliano
Jake Holland Jake Holland
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 30, line 4
Leonard Giuliano Leonard Giuliano
Jake Holland Jake Holland
Joel Jaeggli Joel Jaeggli
Albert Manfredi Albert Manfredi
Stig Venaas 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
Phone: 1-732-420-3292 Phone: 1-732-420-3292
Email: rs1983@att.com Email: rs1983@att.com
Greg Shepherd Greg Shepherd
Cisco Cisco
Phone: Phone:
Email: shep@cisco.com Email: shep@cisco.com
Toerless Eckert Toerless Eckert
Cisco Futurewei Technologies Inc.
Phone: Phone:
Email: tte@cs.fau.de Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Ram Krishnan Ram Krishnan
SupportVectors SupportVectors
Phone: Phone:
Email: ramkri123@gmail.com Email: ramkri123@gmail.com
 End of changes. 164 change blocks. 
395 lines changed or deleted 327 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/