draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-05.txt 
Tsunemasa Hayashi, NTT Tsunemasa Hayashi, NTT
Internet Draft Haixiang He, Nortel Internet Draft Haixiang He, Nortel
Document:draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt Hiroaki Satou, NTT Document:draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-05.txt Hiroaki Satou, NTT
Expires: August 12, 2006 Hiroshi Ohta, NTT Intended Status: Informational Hiroshi Ohta, NTT
Susheela Vaidya, Cisco Systems Expires: March 22, 2008 Susheela Vaidya, Cisco Systems
February 8, 2006 September 19, 2007
Requirements for Accounting, Authentication and Authorization in Requirements for Multicast AAA coordinated between Content
Well Managed IP Multicasting Services Provider(s) and Network Service Provider(s) <draft-ietf-mboned-
<draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt> maccnt-req-05.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
Drafts. documents as Internet-Drafts.
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 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
progress." in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006) Copyright (C) The IETF Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This
document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. Trust (2007). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Abstract Abstract
This memo presents requirements in the area of accounting and This memo presents requirements in the area of accounting and
access control for multicasting. General requirements for access control for IP multicasting. The scope of the requirements
is limited to cases that Authentication, Accounting and
Authorization (AAA) functions are coordinated between Content
Provider(s) and Network Service Provider(s). General requirements
for accounting and admission control capabilities including
quality-of-service (QoS) related issues are listed. This memo
assumes that these capabilities can be realized by functions
implemented at edges of a network based on IGMP or MLD. Finally,
cases for Content Delivery Services (CDS) are described as
application examples which could benefit from multicasting
accounting and access control capabilities as described in the
memo.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 1.] This memo defines requirements related to AAA issues for multi-
accounting capabilities including quality-of-service (QoS) related entity provider models in which the network service provider and
issues are listed. Finally, cases for Content Delivery Services content provider cooperate to provide CDS and various related AAA
(CDS) are described as application examples which could benefit functions for purposes such as protecting and accounting for the
from multicasting accounting and access control capabilities as access to content and network resources. The requirements are
described in the I-D. It is proposed that this I-D be used as a generally not relevant to cases in which there is not a reason to
starting point for further discussion on these issues. share AAA functions between separate entities.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Copyright Notice..................................................1 Copyright Notice.................................................1
1. Introduction...................................................2 1. Introduction..................................................3
2. Definitions and Abbreviations..................................4 2. Definitions and Abbreviations.................................5
2.1 Definitions...................................................4 2.1 Definitions..................................................5
2.2 Abbreviations.................................................4 2.2 Abbreviations................................................6
3. Problem Statement..............................................5 3. Problem Statement.............................................6
3.1 Accounting Issues............................................5 3.1 Accounting Issues...........................................6
3.2 Relationship with Secure Multicasting (MSEC).................7 3.2 Relationship with Secure Multicasting (MSEC)................8
3.3 Regarding Access Media and User Separation...................7 3.3 Regarding Access Media and User Separation..................8
4. General AAA-related Functional Requirements for IP Multicast...7 4. General AAA-related Functional Requirements for IP Multicasting
5. Application Example and its Specific Requirements.............13 .................................................................9
5. Application Example and its Specific Requirements............14
5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP 5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP
are different entities (companies)...............................13 are different entities (companies)..............................14
5.1.1 Network Model for Multicast Content Delivery Service.......13 5.1.1 Network Model for Multicast Content Delivery Service......15
5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements......................15 5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements.....................17
5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements..................................15 5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements.................................17
5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements...............................16 5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements..............................18
5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements..............................17 5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements.............................19
5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP 5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP
are the same entities (companies)................................17 are the same entities (companies)...............................19
6. Acknowledgments...............................................18 6. Acknowledgments..............................................21
7. IANA Considerations...........................................19 7. IANA Considerations..........................................21
8. Security Considerations.......................................19 8. Security Considerations......................................21
9. Conclusion....................................................19 9. Privacy considerations.......................................21
Normative References.............................................19 10. Conclusion..................................................21
Authors' Addresses...............................................20 Normative References............................................22
Full Copyright Statement.........................................21 Authors' Addresses..............................................23
Intellectual Property............................................21 Full Copyright Statement........................................24
Intellectual Property...........................................24
Expiration......................................................25
Acknowledgement.................................................25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This I-D will present general functional requirements related to This memo will present general functional requirements related to
accounting, authentication and authorization issues in IP accounting, access control and admission control issues in IP
multicasting networks. A multicast network which fulfills all of multicasting networks. A multicast network which fulfills all of
these requirements will be called a "fully AAA and QoS enabled" IP
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 2.]
these requirements will be called a "fully AAA enabled" IP
multicasting network. Fulfillment of all or some of the multicasting network. Fulfillment of all or some of the
requirements will make possible more robust management of IP requirements will make possible more robust management of IP
multicasting networks, and as such these capabilities contribute multicasting networks.
to the provision of well-managed IP multicasting services.
IP multicasting is becoming widely used as a method to save IP multicasting is becoming widely used as a method to save
network resources such as bandwidth or CPU processing power of the network resources such as bandwidth or CPU processing power of the
sender's server for cases where a large volume of information sender's server for cases where a large volume of information
needs to be distributed to a large number of receivers. This trend needs to be distributed to a very large number of receivers at a
can be observed both in enterprise use and in broadband services given data speed. This trend can be observed both in enterprise
provided by network operator/service providers. use and in broadband services provided by network operator/service
providers.
Distance learning within a university and in-house (in-company) Distance learning within a university and in-house (in-company)
sharing of multimedia information are examples of enterprise use. sharing of multimedia information are examples of enterprise use.
In these examples, sources generate high-bit rate (e.g., 6Mbit/s) In these examples, sources generate high-bit rate (e.g., 6Mbit/s)
streaming information. When the number of receivers becomes large, streaming information. When the number of receivers becomes
such systems do not scale well without multicasting. large, such systems do not scale well without multicasting.
On the other hand, a Content Delivery Service (CDS) is an example On the other hand, a Content Delivery Service (CDS) is an example
of a broadband service provided by network operators/service of a broadband service provided by network operators/service
providers. Distribution of movies and other video programs to each providers. Distribution of movies and other video programs to
user are typical services. Each channel requires large bandwidth each user are typical services. Each channel requires large
(e.g., 6Mbit/s) and operator/service providers need to provide bandwidth (e.g., 6Mbit/s) and operator/service providers need to
many channels to make their service attractive. In addition, the provide many channels to make their service attractive. In
number of receivers is large (e.g., more than a few thousands). addition, the number of receivers is large (e.g., more than a few
The system to provide this service does not scale well without thousands). The system to provide this service does not scale
multicasting. well without multicasting.
As such, multicasting can be useful to make the network more As such, multicasting can be useful to make the network more
scalable when a large volume of information needs to be scalable when a large volume of information needs to be
distributed to a large number of receivers. However, multicasting distributed to a large number of receivers. However, multicasting
according to current standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] and MLDv2[2]) has according to current standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] and MLDv2[2]) has
drawbacks compared to unicasting when one applies it to commercial drawbacks compared to unicasting when one applies it to commercial
services. Accounting of each user's actions is not possible with services. Accounting of each user's actions is not possible with
multicasting as it is with unicasting. Accounting consists of multicasting as it is with unicasting. Accounting consists of
grasping each user's behavior, when she/he starts/stops to receive grasping each user's behavior, when she/he starts/stops to receive
a channel, which channel she/he receives, etc. a channel, which channel she/he receives, etc.
IP multicasting can be used to distribute free material There are limitations to the application of multicasting in usage
efficiently, but there are limitations to multicasting in usage models where user-based accounting is necessary, such as is the
case with many commercial applications. These limitations have
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 3.] prevented the widespread deployment of multicasting. Development
models where usage accounting is necessary, such as many and use of proprietary solutions to address such issues is an
commercial applications. These limitations have prevented the alternative to providing standardized solutions. However, non-
widespread deployment of multicasting. Alternatively, one could standard solutions have drawbacks in terms of interoperability or
develop and use a proprietary solution to address this issue. cost of development and maintenance.
However, non-standard solutions have drawbacks in terms of
interoperability or cost of development and maintenance.
Without accounting capability in multicasting, information Without accounting capability in multicasting, information
providers desiring accounting capability are forced to use providers desiring accounting capability are forced to use
unicasting even when multicasting would otherwise be desirable unicasting even when multicasting would otherwise be desirable
from a bandwidth/server resource perspective. If multicasting from a bandwidth/server resource perspective. If multicasting
could be used with user-based accounting capabilities, its could be used with user-based accounting capabilities, its
applicability would be greatly widened. applicability would be greatly widened.
This I-D first describes problems on accounting issues in This memo first describes problems on accounting issues in
multicasting. Then the general requirements for this capability multicasting. Then the general requirements for this capability
including QoS related issues are listed. Finally, application including QoS related issues are listed. Finally, application
examples which could benefit from multicasting with accounting examples which could benefit from multicasting with accounting
capabilities are shown. It is proposed that this I-D be used as a capabilities are shown.
starting point for a discussion on these issues.
2. Definitions and Abbreviations 2. Definitions and Abbreviations
2.1 Definitions 2.1 Definitions
Authentication: action for identifying a user as a genuine one. Authentication: action for identifying a user as a genuine one.
Authorization: action for giving permission for a user to access Authorization: action for giving permission for a user to access
content or the network. content or the network.
Eligible user: Users may be eligible (permitted) to access Eligible user: Users may be eligible (permitted) to access
resources because of the attributes they have (e.g., delivery may resources because of the attributes they have (e.g., delivery may
require possession of the correct password or digital certificate), require possession of the correct password or digital
their equipment has (e.g., content may only be eligible to players certificate), their equipment has (e.g., content may only be
that can decode H.264 or 3GPP streams), their edge network has eligible to players that can decode H.264 or 3GPP streams), their
(e.g., HD content may only be eligible to users with 10 Mbps or access network has (e.g., HDTV content may only be eligible to
faster edge connections), or because of where they are in network users with 10 Mbps or faster access line), or because of where
topology (e.g., HD content may not be eligible for users across they are in network topology (e.g., HDTV content may not be
congested links) or in actual geography (e.g., content may only be eligible for users across congested links) or in actual geography
(e.g., content may only be licensed for distribution to certain
countries), and, of course, a mix of attributes may be required
for eligibility or ineligibility.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 4.] User: In this document user refers to a requester and a recipient
licensed for distribution to certain countries), and, of course, a of multicast data, termed a viewer in CDS.
mix of attributes may be required for eligibility or ineligibility.
User-based accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior, User-based accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior,
when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel
she/he receives, etc. she/he receives, etc.
2.2 Abbreviations 2.2 Abbreviations
AAA: Authentication, Accounting and Authorization
ASM: Any-Source Multicast ASM: Any-Source Multicast
CDS: Content Delivery Service CDS: Content Delivery Service
CP: Content Provider CP: Content Provider
IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol
MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery
NSP: Network Service Provider NSP: Network Service Provider
SSM: Single-Source Multicast SSM: Source Specific Multicast
QoS: Quality of Service QoS: Quality of Service
3. Problem Statement 3. Problem Statement
3.1 Accounting Issues 3.1 Accounting Issues
In unicast communications, the server (information source) can In unicast communications, the server (information source) can
identify the client (information receiver) and only permits identify the client (information receiver) and only permits
connection by an eligible client when this type of access control connection by an eligible client when this type of access control
is necessary. In addition, when necessary, the server can grasp is necessary. In addition, when necessary, the server can grasp
what the client is doing (e.g., connecting to the server, starting what the client is doing (e.g., connecting to the server, starting
reception, what information the client is receiving, terminating reception, what information the client is receiving, terminating
reception, disconnecting from the server). reception, disconnecting from the server).
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 5.]
On the other hand, in multicast communication with current On the other hand, in multicast communication with current
standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] or MLDv2[2]) the server just feeds its standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] or MLDv2[2]) the server just feeds its
information to the multicast router [as in Fig.1]. Then, the information to the multicast router [as in Fig.1]. Then, the
multicast router replicates the data to any link which has at multicast router replicates the data to any link which has at
least one client requesting the information. In this process, no least one client requesting the information. In this process,
eligibility check is conducted. Any client can receive information no eligibility check is conducted. Any client can receive
just by requesting it. In other words, the current standards do information just by requesting it.
not provide multicasting with authorization or access control
capabilities sufficient to meet the requirements of accounting. It is envisioned that there are many large-scale content
distribution applications transferred over IP-based networks that
can leverage multicasting technologies to meet their scalability
requirements for clients and data volume, and that some of these
applications require user-based accounting capabilities similar to
available with unicast networks. For example, accounting is needed
if one wants to charge for distributed information on a non-flat-
fee basis. The current standards do not provide multicasting with
authorization or access control capabilities sufficient to meet
the requirements of accounting.
|--- user ----|------------NSP------------------|-----CP---|
+--------+ +--------+
| user |\ | user |\
+--------+ \ +--------+ \
\+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ \+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ |Multi-| |Multi-| |Multi-| | | +--------+ |Multi-| |Multi-| |Multi-| | |
| user |---|cast |----|cast |----|cast |----|Server| | user |---|cast |----|cast |----|cast |----|Server|
+--------+ |router| |router| |router| | | +--------+ |router| |router| |router| | |
/+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ /+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ / +--------+ /
| user |/ | user |/
+--------+ +--------+
Fig.1 Example network for multicast communication Fig.1 Example network for multicast communication
This is the major reason why multicasting is only used for cases
where no user-based accounting capabilities are necessary.
However, since more and more information is transferred over IP-
based networks and some of these applications may require
accounting capabilities, it is easy to envision the requirement of
supporting such cases. For example, accounting is needed if one
wants to charge for distributed information on a non-flat-fee
basis. If the volume of information and number of clients are
large, it is beneficial to use multicasting for purposes of
network resource efficiency.
As such, the same level of user-based accounting capabilities as As such, the same level of user-based accounting capabilities as
provided in unicast networks should be provided in multicast provided in unicast networks should be provided in multicast
networks. networks.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 6.]
3.2 Relationship with Secure Multicasting (MSEC) 3.2 Relationship with Secure Multicasting (MSEC)
In many cases, content encryption (e.g. MSEC) is an effective In many cases, content encryption (e.g. MSEC) is an effective
method for preventing unauthorized access to original content (in method for preventing unauthorized access to original content (in
other words, the ability to decode data to return it to its other words, the ability to decode data to return it to its
generally usable form.) This I-D presents requirements for generally usable form.) This memo presents requirements for
multicasting networks in the areas of 1) access control to prevent multicasting networks in the areas of 1) access control to prevent
unauthorized access to the network, and 2) accounting to grasp unauthorized usage of network resources (link bandwidth, router's
user activity. The functional requirements do not require content processing power, etc.) , and 2) accounting to grasp user activity
encryption although it might solve some of the related problems. in a NSP. The functional requirements do not require content
At this point, it is not yet clear whether encryption would be encryption although it might solve some of the content related
part of a solution and if so, what other components (if any) would problems. At this point, it is not yet clear whether encryption
also be required. would be part of a solution and if so, what other components (if
any) would also be required. Multicast streams generally consume
large amounts of bandwidth for extended periods of time.
Additionally, some multicast streams may have high-priority
depending on a NSP's policy. NSP does not want to let ineligible
users waste large amounts of bandwidth: for example encryption
protects against content viewing but NSP desires protection
against DoS attacks of ineligible users wasting network resources,
even if it is encrypted. Content encryption and multicast access
control should both be able to coexist for more robust security.
3.3 Regarding Access Media and User Separation 3.3 Regarding Access Media and User Separation
The requirements defined in this memo apply to solutions that The requirements defined in this memo apply to solutions that
provide user separation either through physical separation provide user separation either through physical separation
provided by dedicated access media between the user and multicast provided by dedicated access media between the user and multicast
router (see Fig. 1) or else through logical separation in cases router (see Fig. 1) or else through logical separation in cases
of shared physical access media (e.g. using VLAN). However, IP of shared physical access media (e.g. using VLAN). However, IP
multicast solutions with shared Layer 2 access media between the multicast solutions with shared Layer 2 access media between the
user and multicast router and no logical user separation (e.g. user and multicast router and no logical user separation (e.g.
skipping to change at line 296 skipping to change at page 9, line 14
4. General AAA-related Functional Requirements for IP Multicasting 4. General AAA-related Functional Requirements for IP Multicasting
In consideration of the issues presented in section 3, the In consideration of the issues presented in section 3, the
following requirements have been derived: following requirements have been derived:
(1) User identification (1) User identification
The network should be able to identify each user when they attempt The network should be able to identify each user when they attempt
to access the service so that necessary access controlling actions to access the service so that necessary access controlling actions
can be applied. Also, it is necessary to identify the user's
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 7.] receiver (e.g. IP address) of each request (e.g., join/leave) for
can be applied. Also, it is necessary to identify the source per host tracking purposes.
(user) of each request (e.g., join/leave) for user accounting
purposes.
With current protocols (IGMP/MLD), the sender cannot distinguish With current protocols (IGMP/MLD), the sender cannot distinguish
which receivers (end hosts) are actually receiving the information. which receivers (end hosts) are actually receiving the
The sender must rely on the information from the multicasting information. The sender must rely on the information from the
routers. This can be complicated if the sender and routers are multicasting routers. This can be complicated if the sender and
maintained by different entities. routers are maintained by different entities.
(2) Issue of Network Resource Protection (2) Issue of Network Resource Protection
In order to guarantee certain QoS it is important for network In order to guarantee certain QoS it is important for network
providers to be able to protect their network resources from being providers to be able to protect their network resources from being
wasted, (either maliciously or accidentally). wasted, (either maliciously or accidentally).
For comparisons sake, in the case of unicast this issue can be For comparisons sake, for unicast this issue can be resolved e.g.
resolved e.g. by using RSVP. by using RSVP in some cases.
(2.1) Access control (2.1) Access control
The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling
actions when an eligible user requests an action (such as a join actions when an eligible user requests an action (such as a join
or a leave.) The network should be able to reject any action or a leave.) The network should be able to reject any action
requested from an ineligible user. requested from an ineligible user.
(2.2) Control mechanism to support bandwidth of multicast stream (2.2) Control mechanism to support bandwidth of multicast stream
from a physical port of edge router or switch from a physical port of edge router or switch
skipping to change at line 326 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
(2.1) Access control (2.1) Access control
The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling
actions when an eligible user requests an action (such as a join actions when an eligible user requests an action (such as a join
or a leave.) The network should be able to reject any action or a leave.) The network should be able to reject any action
requested from an ineligible user. requested from an ineligible user.
(2.2) Control mechanism to support bandwidth of multicast stream (2.2) Control mechanism to support bandwidth of multicast stream
from a physical port of edge router or switch from a physical port of edge router or switch
The network may need to control the combined bandwidth for all The network may need to control the combined bandwidth for all
groups at the physical port of the edge router or switch so that channels at the physical port of the edge router or switch so that
these given physical entities are not overflowed with traffic. these given physical entities are not overflowed with traffic.
(2.3) Control mechanism of number of groups delivered from a (2.3) Control mechanism of number of channels delivered from a
physical port of edge router and switch physical port of edge router and switch
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 8.]
If an NSP desires to guarantee a certain level of QoS to CP and If an NSP desires to guarantee a certain level of QoS to CP and
the receivers, it is necessary that the NSP be able to control the the receivers, it is necessary that the NSP be able to control the
number of groups delivered from a physical port of an edge router number of channels delivered from a physical port of an edge
and a switch so that the combined bandwidth between content router and a switch in cases that there is a limit to the number
servers and multicast routers can be within the limit. of packet copies and/or number of channels that can be handled by
multicast routers.
For comparisons sake, in the case of unicast this issue can be For comparisons sake, for unicast this issue can be resolved e.g.
resolved e.g. by using RSVP. by using RSVP in some cases.
(3) User Authentication (3) User Authentication
The network should be able to authenticate a user. The network should be able to authenticate a user.
(4) User Authorization (4) User Authorization
The network, at its option, should be able to authorize a user's The network, at its option, should be able to authorize a user's
access to content or a multicast group, so as to meet any demands access to content or a multicast group, so as to meet any demands
by a CP to prevent content access by ineligible users. In the case by a CP to prevent content access by ineligible users. In the
that the NSP may wish to provide a service based on guaranteed case that the NSP may wish to provide a service based on
delivery, the NSP would not want to waste its network resources on guaranteed delivery, the NSP would not want to waste its network
ineligible users. resources on ineligible users.
(5) Accounting and Billing (5) Accounting and Billing
In many commercial multicast situations, NSPs would like to be In many commercial multicast situations, NSPs would like to be
able to precisely grasp network resource consumption and CPs would able to precisely grasp network resource consumption and CPs would
like to be able to precisely grasp the content consumption by end- like to be able to precisely grasp the content consumption by
users. Such information might be used for identifying highly users. Such information might be used for identifying highly
viewed content for advertising revenue, ratings calculations, viewed content for advertising revenue, ratings calculations,
programming decisions, etc., as well as billing and auditing programming decisions, etc., as well as billing and auditing
purposes. Also content and network providers may wish to provide purposes. Also content and network providers may wish to provide
users with access to their usage history. users with access to their usage history.
To assemble such an understanding of end-user behavior, it is To assemble such an understanding of user behavior, it is
necessary to precisely log information such as who (host/user) is necessary to precisely log information such as who (host/user) is
accessing what content at what time (join action) until what time accessing what content at what time (join action) until what time
(leave action). The result of the access-control decision (e.g. (leave action). The result of the access-control decision (e.g.
results of authorization) would also be valuable information. The results of authorization) would also be valuable information. The
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 9.]
desired degree of logging precisions would depend on the desired degree of logging precisions would depend on the
application used. application used.
(5.1) How to share user information (5.1) How to share user information
For commercial multicast applications it is important for NSP and For commercial multicast applications it is important for NSP and
CP to be able to share information regarding user's behaviour (as CP to be able to share information regarding user's behaviour (as
described in (5) in standardized ways. described in (5) in standardized ways.
(6) Notification to Users of the Result of the Join Request (6) Notification to Users of the Result of the Join Request
skipping to change at line 401 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
Depending on the service, networks should allow for a user to Depending on the service, networks should allow for a user to
receive a service from different places and/or with a different receive a service from different places and/or with a different
terminal device. terminal device.
(8) Support of ASM and SSM (8) Support of ASM and SSM
Both ASM (G), and SSM (S,G) should be supported as multicast Both ASM (G), and SSM (S,G) should be supported as multicast
models. models.
(9) Admission Control for Join Action (9) Admission Control for Join Action
In order to maintain a predefined QoS level, depending on the In order to maintain a predefined QoS level, depending on the
NSP's policy, an edge router should be able to control the number NSP's policy, a user edge should be able to control the number of
of streams it serves to a user, and total bandwidth consumed to streams it serves to a user, and total bandwidth consumed to that
that user. For example if the number of streams being served to a user. For example if the number of streams being served to a
certain user has reached the limit defined by the NSP's policy, certain user has reached the limit defined by the NSP's policy,
then the edge router should not accept a subsequent "join" until then the user edge should not accept a subsequent "join" until one
one of the existing streams is terminated. Similarly, if the NSP of the existing streams is terminated. Similarly, if the NSP is
is controlling by per-user bandwidth consumption, then a controlling by per-user bandwidth consumption, then a subsequent
subsequent "join" should not be accepted if delivery of the "join" should not be accepted if delivery of the requested stream
would push the consumed bandwidth over the NSP policy-defined
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 10.] limit.
requested stream would push the consumed bandwidth over the NSP
policy-defined limit.
(10) Channel Join Latency and Leave Latency (10) Channel Join Latency and Leave Latency
Commercial implementations of IP multicasting are likely to have Commercial implementations of IP multicasting are likely to have
strict requirements in terms of user experience. Join latency is strict requirements in terms of user experience. Join latency is
the time between when a user sends a "join" request and when the the time between when a user sends a "join" request and when the
requested data streaming first reaches the user. Leave latency is requested data streaming first reaches the user. Leave latency is
the time between when a user sends a "leave" signal and when the the time between when a user sends a "leave" signal and when the
network stops streaming to the user. network stops streaming to the user.
Leave and Join latencies impact the acceptable end-user experience Leave and Join latencies impact the acceptable user experience for
for fast channel surfing. In an IP-TV application, users are not fast channel surfing. In an IP-TV application, users are not going
going to be receptive to a slow response time when changing to be receptive to a slow response time when changing channels.
channels. If there are policies for controlling the number of If there are policies for controlling the number of simultaneous
simultaneous streams a user may access then channel surfing will streams a user may access then channel surfing will be determined
be determined by the join and leave latencies. by the join and leave latencies.
Furthermore, leave affects resource consumption: with a low "leave Furthermore, leave affects resource consumption: with a low
latency" network providers could minimize streaming content when "leave latency" network providers could minimize streaming content
there are no audiences. when there are no audiences.
It is important that any overhead for authentication, It is important that any overhead for authentication,
authorization, and access-control be minimized at the times of authorization, and access-control be minimized at the times of
joining and leaving multicast groups so as to achieve join and joining and leaving multicast channels so as to achieve join and
leave latencies acceptable in terms of user experience. For leave latencies acceptable in terms of user experience. For
example this is important in an IP-TV application, because users example this is important in an IP-TV application, because users
are not going to be receptive to a slow response time when are not going to be receptive to a slow response time when
changing channels. changing channels.
(11) Scalability (11) Scalability
Solutions that are used for well managed IP multicasting should Solutions that are used for AAA and QoS enabled IP multicasting
scale enough to support the needs of content providers and network should scale enough to support the needs of content providers and
operators. network operators. NSP's multicast access and QoS policies should
be manageable for large scale users. (e.g. millions of users,
thousands of edge-routers)
(12) Small Impact on the Existing Products (12) Small Impact on the Existing Products
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 11.]
Impact on the existing products (e.g., protocols, software, etc.) Impact on the existing products (e.g., protocols, software, etc.)
should be as minimal as possible. should be as minimal as possible.
Ideally the NSP should be able to use the same infrastructure Ideally the NSP should be able to use the same infrastructure
(such as access control) to support commercial multicast services (such as access control) to support commercial multicast services
for the so called "triple play" services: voice (VoIP), video, and for the so called "triple play" services: voice (VoIP), video, and
broadband Internet access services. broadband Internet access services.
When a CP requires the NSP to provide a level of QoS surpassing When a CP requires the NSP to provide a level of QoS surpassing
"best effort" delivery or to provide special services (e.g., to "best effort" delivery or to provide special services (e.g., to
limited users with specific attributes), certain parameters of the limited users with specific attributes), certain parameters of the
CDS may be defined by a contractual relation between the NSP and CDS may be defined by a contractual relation between the NSP and
the CP. However, just as for best-effort unicast, multicast allows the CP. However, just as for best-effort unicast, multicast
for content sourced by CPs without a contractual relation with the allows for content sourced by CPs without a contractual relation
NSP. Therefore, solutions addressing the requirements defined in with the NSP. Therefore, solutions addressing the requirements
this memo should not make multicasting without AAA features defined in this memo should not make obsolete multicasting that
obsolete. NSPs may offer tiered services, with higher does not include AAA features. NSPs may offer tiered services,
QOS,accounting, authentication, etc., depending on contractual with higher QOS, accounting, authentication, etc., depending on
relation with the CPs. It is therefore important that Multicast contractual relation with the CPs. It is therefore important that
AAA and QoS functions be as modular and flexible as possible. Multicast AAA and QoS functions be as modular and flexible as
possible.
(13) Deployable as Alternative to Unicast (13) Deployable as Alternative to Unicast
IP Multicasting would ideally be available as an alternative to IP IP Multicasting would ideally be available as an alternative to IP
unicasting when the "on-demand" nature of unicasting is not unicasting when the "on-demand" nature of unicasting is not
required. Therefore interfaces to multicasting should allow for required. Therefore interfaces to multicasting should allow for
easy integration into CDS systems that support unicasting. easy integration into CDS systems that support unicasting.
Especially equivalent interfaces for authorization, access control Especially equivalent interfaces for authorization, access control
and accounting capabilities should be provided. and accounting capabilities should be provided.
(14) Multicast Replication (14) Multicast Replication
The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication
is being done on an access-node (e.g. DSLAMs or OLTs). is being done on an access-node (e.g. DSLAMs or OLTs).
Specific functional requirements for each application can be Specific functional requirements for each application can be
derived from the above general requirements. An example is shown derived from the above general requirements. An example is shown
skipping to change at line 492 skipping to change at page 14, line 17
(14) Multicast Replication (14) Multicast Replication
The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication
is being done on an access-node (e.g. DSLAMs or OLTs). is being done on an access-node (e.g. DSLAMs or OLTs).
Specific functional requirements for each application can be Specific functional requirements for each application can be
derived from the above general requirements. An example is shown derived from the above general requirements. An example is shown
in the section 5. in the section 5.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 12.]
5. Application Example and its Specific Requirements 5. Application Example and its Specific Requirements
This section shows an application example which could benefit from This section shows an application example which could benefit from
multicasting. Then, specific functional requirements related to multicasting. Then, specific functional requirements related to
user-based accounting capabilities are derived. user-based accounting capabilities are derived.
5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are 5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are
different entities (companies) different entities (companies)
Broadband access networks such as ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Broadband access networks such as ADSL (Asymmetric Digital
skipping to change at line 520 skipping to change at page 15, line 8
One way to provide high quality CDS is to use closed networks One way to provide high quality CDS is to use closed networks
("walled-garden" model). ("walled-garden" model).
This subsection shows an example where CP and NSP are different This subsection shows an example where CP and NSP are different
entities (companies). entities (companies).
5.1.1 Network Model for Multicast Content Delivery Service 5.1.1 Network Model for Multicast Content Delivery Service
As shown in Fig.2, networks for CDS contain three different types As shown in Fig.2, networks for CDS contain three different types
of entities: Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider (NSP), of entities: Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider
and end user clients. An NSP owns the network resources (NSP), and user clients. An NSP owns the network resources
(infrastructure). It accommodates content providers on one side (infrastructure). It accommodates content providers on one side
and accommodates end user clients on the other side. NSP provides and accommodates user clients on the other side. NSP provides the
the network for CDS to two other entities (i.e., CPs and end user network for CDS to two other entities (i.e., CPs and user
clients). A CP provides content to each end-user client through clients). A CP provides content to each user through the network
the network of NSPs. NSPs are responsible for delivering the of NSPs. NSPs are responsible for delivering the content to user
content to end user clients, and for controlling the network clients, and for controlling the network resources.
resources.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 13.]
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| CP | | CP | | CP | | CP | | CP | | CP |
| #1 | | #2 | | #3 | | #1 | | #2 | | #3 |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | content | | | | content | | | | content | | | | content | | | | content | | | | content | |
| | server | | | | server | | | | server | | | | server | | | | server | | | | server | |
| +-------+-+ | | +----+----+ | | +-+-------+ | | +-------+-+ | | +----+----+ | | +-+-------+ |
+----------\--+ +------|------+ +--/----------+ +----------\--+ +------|------+ +--/----------+
\ | / \ | /
\ | / <- network/network \ | / <- network/network
skipping to change at line 560 skipping to change at page 16, line 34
| | User Edge | | | | User Edge | |
| +--+---+---+--+ | | +--+---+---+--+ |
| / | \ | | / | \ |
+------------- / --- | --- \ ----------+ +------------- / --- | --- \ ----------+
/ | \ / | \
/ | \ <- user/network interface / | \ <- user/network interface
/ | \ / | \
+---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+ +---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+
|client #a | |client #b | |client #c | |client #a | |client #b | |client #c |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
End user A End user B End user C User A User B User C
Fig.2 Example of CDS network configuration Fig.2 Example of CDS network configuration
The NSP provides the information server for all multicast channels, The NSP provides the information server for all multicast
and a CP gives detailed channel information (e.g., Time table of channels, and a CP gives detailed channel information (e.g., Time
each channel) to the information server. An end-user client gets table of each channel) to the information server. An end-user
the information from the information server. In this model, client gets the information from the information server. In this
multicast is used in the NSP's CDS network, and there are two model, multicasting is used in the NSP's CDS network, and there
different contracts. One is the contract between the NSP and the are two different contracts. One is the contract between the NSP
and the user which permits the user to access the basic network
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 14.] resources of the NSP. Another contract is between the CP and user
end user which permits the user to access the basic network to permit the user to subscribe to multicast content. Because the
resources of the NSP. Another contract is between the CP and end CP and NSP are different entities, and the NSP generally does not
user to permit the user to subscribe to multicast content. Because allow a CP to control (operate) the network resources of the NSP,
the CP and NSP are different entities, and the NSP generally does user authorization needs to be done by the CP and NSP
not allow a CP to control (operate) the network resources of the
NSP, user authorization needs to be done by the CP and NSP
independently. Since there is no direct connection to the independently. Since there is no direct connection to the
user/network interface, the CP cannot control the user/network user/network interface, the CP cannot control the user/network
interface. An end user may want to move to another place, or may interface. A user may want to move to another place, or may want
want to change her/his device (client) anytime without to change her/his device (client) any time without interrupting
interrupting her/his reception of services. As such, IP Multicast her/his reception of services. As such, IP Multicast network
network should support portability capabilities. should support portability capabilities.
5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements 5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements
To have a successful business providing multicast, there are some Below are listed specific requirements to support common business
specific requirements for the IP Multicast-based Content Delivery cases/ contractual arrangements for the IP Multicast-based Content
Service. Delivery Service.
5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements 5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements
Since the CP and NSP are different business entities, they need to An NSP may have different contractual agreements with various CPs
share the revenue. Such a revenue sharing business relationship or various legal obligations in different locations. One possible
requires accurate and near real-time accounting information about business relationship between a CP and NSP is that of a revenue
the end user clients' activity on accessing the content services. sharing which could be on a per content/usage-base. A solution
The accounting information should be per content/usage-base to should support varied billing and charging methods to satisfy both
enable varied billing and charging methods. common legal and business/financial requirements to deploy
multicasting services: this requires accurate and near real-time
accounting information about the user clients' activity accessing
the content services.
The user accessing particular content is represented by the user's The user accessing particular content is represented by the user's
activities of joining or leaving the corresponding multicast activities of joining or leaving the corresponding multicast
group/channel (<g> or <s,g>). In multicast networks, only NSPs can group/channel (<(*,g)> or (s,g)). In multicast networks, only NSPs
collect group joining or leaving activities in real-time through can collect joining or leaving activities in real-time through
their last-hop multicast access edge devices. The NSPs can their user edges. The NSPs can transfer the accounting information
transfer the accounting information to related CPs for them to to related CPs for them to generate user billing information.
generate end user billing information. The normal AAA technology Existing standard AAA technology may be used to transfer the
can be used to transfer the accounting information. accounting information.
To match the accounting information with a particular end-user
client, the end-user client has to be authenticated. Usually the
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 15.] To match the accounting information with a particular user, the
account information of an end-user client for content access is user has to be authenticated. Usually the account information of a
maintained by the CP. An end user client may have different user user for content access is maintained by the CP. A user may have
accounts for different CPs. The account is usually in the format different user accounts for different CPs.(e.g. user_a@cp#1 and
of (username, password) so an end user client can access the user_b@cp#2) The account is usually in the format of (username,
content services from anywhere. For example, an end user client password) so an user can access the content services from
can access the CP from different NSPs. It should be noted that the anywhere. For example, an user can access the CP from different
user account used for content access can be different from the one NSPs.(e.g. a fixed line NSP and a mobile NSP). It should be noted
used for network access maintained by NSPs. that the user account used for content access can be different
from the one used for network access maintained by NSPs.
The NSP-CP model represents a multi-domain AAA environment. There The NSP-CP model represents a multi-domain AAA environment. There
are plural cases of the model depending on the trust relationship are plural cases of the model depending on the trust relationship
between the NSP and CP, and additional service requirements such between the NSP and CP, and additional service requirements such
as a certain QoS level guarantee or service/terminal portability. as a certain QoS level guarantee or service/terminal portability.
A mechanism is necessary to allow a CP and NSP to grasp each A mechanism is necessary to allow a CP and NSP to grasp each
user's behavior independently. user's behavior independently.
Another requirement related to accounting is the ability to notify Another requirement related to accounting is the ability to notify
a user when accounting really starts. When a "free preview" a user when accounting really starts. When a "free preview"
capability is supported, accounting may not start at the same time capability is supported, accounting may not start at the same time
as the user's joining of the stream. as the user's joining of the stream.
Any solution addressing the requirements of this memo should
consider the Interdomain accounting issues presented in RFC-2975
[3]. It is especially important to consider that the CP and NSP
as separate administrative entities can not be assumed to trust
one another. The solution should be robust enough to handle
packet loss between entity domains and assure for data integrity.
In addition any solution should take into consideration common
legal or financial requirements requiring confidential archiving
of usage data.
5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements 5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements
The NSPs are responsible for delivering content and are required to The NSPs are responsible for delivering content and are generally
meet certain QoS levels or SLA (service level agreements). For required to meet certain QoS levels or SLA (service level
example, video quality is very sensitive to packet loss. So if an agreements). For example, video quality is very sensitive to packet
NSP cannot meet the quality requirements due to limited network loss. So if an NSP --due to limited network resources -- cannot
resources if it accepts an additional user request, the NSP should meet quality requirements if it accepts an additional user request,
reject that end user's access request to avoid charging the the NSP should reject that user's access request to avoid charging
existing (i.e., already joined) user for bad services. For example, the existing (i.e., already-joined) user for bad services. For
if an access line is shared by several users, an additional user's example, if an access line is shared by several users, an
join may cause performance degradation for other users. If the additional user's join may cause performance degradation for other
incoming user is the first user on an edge node, this will initiate users. If the incoming user is the first user on a user edge, this
the transmission of data between the multicast router and the edge will initiate the transmission of data between the provider edge
node and this extra network traffic may cause performance and the user edge and this extra network traffic may cause
degradation. There may also be policies that do not necessarily performance degradation. There may also be policies that do not
give highest priority to the "first-come" users, and these should necessarily give highest priority to the "first-come" users, and
also be considered. these should also be considered.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 16.]
In order to protect network resources against misuse/malicious In order to protect network resources against misuse/malicious
access and maintain a QoS level, appropriate admission control access and maintain a QoS level, appropriate admission control
function for traffic policing purposes is necessary so that the NSP function for traffic policing purposes is necessary so that the NSP
can accept or reject the request without degrading the QoS beyond can accept or reject the request without degrading the QoS beyond
the specified level. the specified level.
5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements 5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements
There are two different aims of authentication. One is There are two different aims of authentication. One is
authentication for network access, and another one is for content authentication for network access, and another one is for content
access. For the first case of authentication, NSP has a AAA server, access. For the first case of authentication, NSP has a AAA
and for the second case, each CP has a AAA server. In some cases, server, and for the second case, each CP has a AAA server. In some
CPs delegate (outsource) the operation of user authentication to cases, CPs delegate (outsource) the operation of user
NSPs. authentication to NSPs.
As such, in addition to network access, multicast group access by As such, in addition to network access, multicast access by a user
a user also needs to be authenticated. Content authentication also needs to be authenticated. Content authentication should
should support the models where: support the models where:
- authentication for multicast content is outsourced to the - authentication for multicast content is outsourced to the
NSP. NSP.
- authentication for multicast content access is operated by - authentication for multicast content access is operated by
the content provider the CP
5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are 5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are
the same entities (companies) the same entities (companies)
Another application example is the case where the content provider Another application example is the case where the content provider
(CP) and network service provider (NSP) are the same entity (CP) and network service provider (NSP) are the same entity
(company) as shown in Fig. 3. In the case that the CP and NSP are (company) as shown in Fig. 3. In the case that the CP and NSP are
the same entity, some of the requirements indicated in 4.1 are not the same entity, some of the requirements indicated in 4.1 are not
required. required.
This model does not require the following items: This model does not require the following items:
- Communication method between sender (server) and user (end - Communication method between sender (content server) and
host). Since they belong to the same company, they can use user. Since they belong to the same company, they can use
all the available information. all the available information.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 17.] - Methods to share user-related information between NSPs and
- Methods to share user-related information between network CPs.
providers and content providers.
+-----------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------+
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | content | | | | content | |
| | server | | | | server | |
| +----+----+ | | +----+----+ |
| | | | | |
| CP+NSP +-------+-------+ | | CP+NSP +-------+-------+ |
| | Provider Edge | | | | Provider Edge | |
| +-------+-------+ +--------------------+ | | +-------+-------+ +--------------------+ |
| | | Information server | | | | | Information server | |
| | +--------------------+ | | | +--------------------+ |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| | User Edge | | | | User Edge | |
| +--+---+---+--+ | | +--+---+---+--+ |
| / | \ | | / | \ |
+----------- / --- | --- \ ---------------------------+ +----------- / --- | --- \ ---------------------------+
/ | \ / | \
/ | \ <- user/network interface / | \ <- user/network interface
/ | \ / | \
+---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+ +---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+
|user #a | |user #b | |user #c | |Client #a | |client #b | |client #c |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
End user A End user B End user C User A User B User C
Fig.3 Example of CDS network configuration Fig.3 Example of CDS network configuration
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors of this draft would like to express their appreciation The authors of this draft would like to express their appreciation
to Pekka Savola of Netcore Ltd., Daniel Alvarez, and Toerless to Pekka Savola of Netcore Ltd., Daniel Alvarez, and Toerless
Eckert of Cisco Systems, Sam Sambasivan of AT&T, Sanjay Wadhwa of Eckert of Cisco Systems, Sam Sambasivan of AT&T, Sanjay Wadhwa of
Juniper, Tom Anschutz and Steven Wright of BellSouth, Nicolai Juniper, Tom Anschutz and Steven Wright of BellSouth, Nicolai
Leymann of T-Systems, Carlos Garcia Braschi of Telefonica Empresas, Leymann of T-Systems, Carlos Garcia Braschi of Telefonica
Marshall Eubanks of Multicast Techno, Stephen Rife of NTT and Empresas, Marshall Eubanks of Multicast Techno, Stephen Rife of
David Meyer in his role as mboned WG chair, as well as their NTT and David Meyer in his role as mboned WG chair, as well as
thanks to the participants of the MBONED WG in general. their thanks to the participants of the MBONED WG in general.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 18.]
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This I-D does not raise any IANA consideration issues. This memo does not raise any IANA consideration issues.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Accounting capabilities can be used to enhance the security of Accounting capabilities can be used to enhance the security of
multicast networks by excluding ineligible clients from the multicast networks by excluding ineligible clients from the
networks. networks.
9. Conclusion These requirements are not meant to address encryption issues.
Any solution meeting these requirements should allow for the
implementation of encryption such as MSEC on the multicast data.
This I-D describes general requirements for providing "well 9. Privacy considerations
managed" IP multicasting services. It lists issues related to
Any solution which meets these requirements should weigh the
benefits of user-based accounting with the privacy considerations
of the user. For example solutions are encouraged when applicable
to consider encryption of the content data between the content
provider and the user in such a way that the Network Provider does
not know the contents of the channel.
10. Conclusion
This memo describes general requirements for providing AAA and QoS
enabled IP multicasting services. It lists issues related to
accounting, authentication, authorization and admission control accounting, authentication, authorization and admission control
for multicast content delivery. Content Delivery Services with for multicast content delivery. Content Delivery Services with
different business models is cited as an application which could different business models are cited as the type of application
benefit from the capabilities of "well managed" IP multicasting which could benefit from the capabilities of AAA and QoS enabled
described in this document. IP multicasting described in this document.
It is proposed that this document be used as a starting point for
discussing requirements for "well managed" IP multicasting
services.
Normative References Normative References
[1] B. Cain, et. al., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version [1] B. Cain, et. al., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC3376, October 2002. 3", RFC3376, October 2002.
[2] R. Vida, et. al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 [2] R. Vida, et. al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC3810, June 2004. (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC3810, June 2004.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 19.] [3] Aboba B , et. al., "Introduction to Accounting Management",
RFC 2975, October 2000.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tsunemasa Hayashi Tsunemasa Hayashi
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
1-1 Hikarino'oka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa, 239-0847 Japan 1-1 Hikarino'oka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa, 239-0847 Japan
Phone: +81 46 859 8790 Phone: +81 46 859 8790
Email: hayashi.tsunemasa@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: hayashi.tsunemasa@lab.ntt.co.jp
Haixiang He Haixiang He
Nortel Nortel
skipping to change at line 799 skipping to change at page 24, line 4
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan 3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 3617 Phone: +81 422 59 3617
Email: ohta.hiroshi@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: ohta.hiroshi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Susheela Vaidya Susheela Vaidya
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 408 525 1952 Phone: +1 408 525 1952
Email: svaidya@cisco.com Email: svaidya@cisco.com
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 20.]
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth
retain all their rights. therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on "This document and the information contained herein are provided
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.".
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the
described in this document or the extent to which any license technology described in this document or the extent to which
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it any license under such rights might or might not be available;
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with
in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the required to implement this standard. Please address the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 21.] Expiration
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2008.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 92 change blocks. 
318 lines changed or deleted 351 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/