[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ANCP] ANCP Multicast Admission Control



Hi Stefaan,

On 30 Jan 2008, at 18:32, Stefaan DE CNODDER wrote:


Francois,

In addition, it is not clear to me how useful these additional models are. It also raises a number of questions. For example, if the Policy Server wants to query the AN, should it do so via the NAS instead of directly to AN?

Both are possible, is there any preferred way according to you?

Also, to be able to perform complete Video CAC, the AN
would have to maintain user policy information (eg what is the fraction of line bandwidth that can be used for Video for that subscriber at that point in time considering the current DSL train rate). Is this in line with current ANCP model? how is user info made available to AN? What impact does all this have on ANCP?
While we can start discussing those questions and the usefulness of such a model, IMHO this should not delay progress of current ANCP documents.
So in short, I do _not_ support the additional text below relating to the introduction of the new additional model (PS-->NAS-->AN) and corresponding additional ANCP requirements.

does this mean that you prefer PS-->AN?

No.
I am not expressing any preference for PS-->AN over PS-->NAS-->AN
There seemed to be a lot of additional text proposed below relating to PS-->NAS-->AN as this involves ANCP more heavily. And I am simply stating that I do not support adding such text.


The current framework defines PS-->AN and PS-->NAS-->AN as out of scope for now ("It is therefore beyond the scope of this document.") and I recommend we do not change scope at this stage if we want to have a first version of the ANCP protocol in the targeted timeframe. Those can always be easily added to the scope/protocol once there is stronger consensus/understanding or their applicability in the group and when the WG has completed the first base protocol spec.

Francois


To be honest, for me both options are valid. Is there any specific reason why you would not like to have the request going to the NAS?

regards,
Stefaan


Cheers
Francois
On 28 Jan 2008, at 14:18, OOGHE Sven wrote:
Hi,

Based on the discussion on the list, I have prepared the following text
proposal concerning multicast conditional access. I tried to cover the
different scenarios that were identified on the list. This includes the
proposal from Tina and Roberta, and feedback from Stefaan.


If nobody objects, I will use the text below to update the text in
section 3.4.2 in the ANCP Framework. I will also add the corresponding
requirements in section 4.2 (ANCP), 4.7.6 (Access Node) and 4.8.6 (NAS).


Regards,
Sven

---

<< Section 3.4.2 >>

3.4.2.  Multicast Admission Control

<< first part of the section remains unchanged. The text from the second
bullet onward is updated with below text >>


o Another approach is the reverse: it consists of the Policy Server
querying the AN (either directly, or indirectly via the NAS) so
that both unicast and multicast CAC for the access line are
performed by the AN. In this case, a subscriber request for a
unicast flow (e.g. a Video on Demand session) will trigger a
resource request message towards a Policy Server; the latter will
then query the AN, that in turn will perform unicast CAC for the
access line and respond, indicating whether the unicast request is
to be honored or denied.


   The second scenario can be split in to cases:

o In case the Policy Server queries the AN directly, the approach
doesn't require the use of ANCP. It is therefore beyond the scope
of this document.


o In case the Policy Server queries the AN indirectly via the NAS,
the interaction can be handled as an ANCP transaction. When the
Policy Server queries the NAS, the NAS can use ANCP to query the
AN, specifying the Access-Loop-Circuit-ID and the required
bandwidth for the requested unicast flow. Upon receiving the
query from the NAS, the AN then performs Admission Control and
responds to the NAS, indicating if this unicast VoD request can be
accepted or denied.


3.4.2.1.  When not to perform Admission Control

In general, the Access Node and NAS may not be aware of all possible
multicast groups that will be streamed in the access network. For
instance, it is likely that there will be multicast streams offered
across the Internet. For these unknown streams, performing bandwidth
admission control may be challenging.


To solve this, these requests could be accepted without performing
Admission Control. This solution works, provided that the network
handles the streams as best effort, so that other streams are not
impacted at times of congestion.


Disabling Admission Control for unknown stream can be achieved by
adding a "catch-all statement" in the Access Node white list or grey
list. In case the Access Node queries the NAS, the NAS on his turn
will have to accept the request. That way, the unknown streams are
not blocked by default.


Next, in order to ensure that the streams are handled as best effort,
the flow must be marked as such when entering the service provider
network. This way, whenever congestion occurs somewhere in the
access/aggregation network, this stream will be kicked out before the
access provider's own premium content.


The above concept is applicable beyond the notion of "Internet
streams" or other unknown streams; it can applied to known multicast
streams as well. In this case, the Access Node or NAS will accept
the stream even when bandwidth may not be sufficient to support the
stream. This again requires that the stream is marked as best effort
traffic before entering the access/aggregation network.


3.4.2.2.  Multicast Admission Control and White Lists

As mentioned in section Section 3.4.1, conditional access to popular
IPTV channels can be achieved by means of a White and Black list
configured on the Access Node. This method allows the Access Node to
autonomously decide whether or not access can be granted to a
multicast flow.


IPTV is an example of a service that will not be offered as best
effort, but requires some level of guaranteed Quality of Service.
This requires the use of Multicast Admission Control. Hence, if the
Access Node wants to autonomously perform the admission process, it
must be aware of the bandwidth characteristics of multicast flows.
Otherwise, the Access Node would have to query the NAS for Multicast
Admission Control; this would defeat the purpose of using a White and
Black list.


Some network deployments may combine the use of White list, Black
list
and Grey list. In this case, the AN will be aware of the portion of
the bandwidth used on the Access Port for flows matching an entry in
the White list. In order to perform Multicast Admission Control for
flows matching an entry in the Grey list, the NAS should add the
bandwidth characteristics of the flow in the Admission Response
message. In this model, the AN would query the NAS for conditional
access, and would then locally perform Multicast Conditional Access,
using the bandwidth information retrieved from the NAS.


<< Section 4.2: add following requirements >>

   o  The ANCP MUST support providing an Access Node with bandwidth
      information associated with multicast flows that are part of a
      White list.

o The ANCP SHOULD allow the NAS to indicate the bandwidth
information, associated with the requested multicast flows, in the
admission decision sent to the AN.


   o  In case a unicast and multicast stream share resources on an
      Access Port, the ANCP MUST allow the NAS to query the AN to
      request an admission decision for a unicast flow to be sent
      over that Port.

<< Section 4.7.6: add following requirements >>

o The AN must be able to perform Admission Control for multicast
streams, using the bandwith information of the requested multicast
flow. The information may be provisioned by a management system
or by the NAS (using a Control Reqest message or an Admission
Response message).


o Upon receiving a query from the NAS to request an admission
decision for a unicast flow to be sent over a particular Access
Port, the AN must support using ANCP to reply to the NAS,
indicating whether the request is to be honored or denied.



<< Section 4.8.6: add following requirements >>

o The NAS should support using ANCP to configure multicast
admission control information to Access Ports on an Access Node.


o Upon receiving a query from the AN for a request to replicate a
multicast flow to a particular Access Port, the NAS should support
using ANCP to reply to the AN indicating the bandwidth
information,
associated with the requested multicast flow.


o Upon receiving a request from a Policy Server for a unicast flow
to be sent over a particular Access Port, the NAS must support
using ANCP to query the AN to receive a response indicating
whether the request is to be honored or denied.


---

Sven Ooghe
Alcatel-Lucent
CTO Office, Access Division
Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium
tel.: +32 3 240 42 26
fax: +32 3 240 40 73

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited
without the prior consent of its author.




_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp
_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp


_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp



_______________________________________________ ANCP mailing list ANCP at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp