Subject: mboned: l-D: Access Right Distribution Protocol (ARDP)

From: Alexandre Cassen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:38:29 +0200

Dear mboned WG,

After advices from IETF people, I would like to pop up mboned with a
protocol we are currently running on our national TVoDSL backbone. The
scope of the document is :

   This document describes a protocol to securely distribute channel
   access rights to TVoDSL customers using multicast over a national
   backbone. The protocol typically runs on DSLAM or any other piece of
   equipments to locally store owned customers TV channel access right.
   This design provides access control at edge level.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cassen-access-right-distribution-protocol-00.txt

Best regards,
Alexandre Cassen
Free.fr R&D Lab

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:01:19 -0500

Are you interested in having the Mboned WG adopt this draft as a WG  
document ?
I notice that you submitted it also to the IPDVB list, so I am cc'ing  
the IPDVB chair.

Are you familiar with the AAA access requirements draft :
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt- 
req-04.txt  ?

Upon a brief reading of your document, it seems that this document  
and also
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt
may impinge upon it.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Alexandre Cassen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:13:50 +0200

Marshall,

> Are you interested in having the Mboned WG adopt this draft as a WG  

Sure, in fact, I didn't found a dedicated place for TVoDSL, this is why
I post into differents IETF WG having focus around draft topic.

I submitted, after draft announcement, into the following IETF WG:
mboned, msec, avt, magma, ipdvb.

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt- 

I will read it.

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt

oh, maybe we can find a way to make all the work cohabit together. We
just wanted to share the protocol we designed for TVoDSL access control.

Best regards,
Alexandre

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:44:18 -0500

> mboned, msec, avt, magma, ipdvb.

I think that this WG would be a logical place for this; as you can  
see we
are already working on some related issues. Of course, whether or not it
is adopted is a matter for WG consensus.

What follows are my questions as WG member, not co-chair.

I have one big question - is it necessary to be specific to Internet  
protocol TV over DSL ?
Couldn't the same solutions be applied to Internet TV over Ethernet  
or some other Layer 2 protocol ?

More specific questions -

It says (section 2.2 and elsewhere) that the  Master Operator  
provides  "Assigned MCAST group" to each TV Operator. Is there a  
mechanism for requesting this ? (I.e., how does the TV operator  
signify the need
for a dynamic as opposed to a static group assignment ?)

Is there a mechanism for allowing external multicasts into the  
system? (In other words, how would an
external multicast reach the set top box?) I was at the recent TVoDSL  
meeting in Paris and can report that there was absolutely interest in  
this from at least some of the operators.

Regards
Marshall

>> req-04.txt

---

From: Alexandre Cassen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:11:32 +0200

> see we are already working on some related issues. Of course, whether
> or not it is adopted is a matter for WG consensus.
> 

sure you right, this can be viewed as an architecture for distributed
authentication. We are runing a 'national' DWDM network using a
dedicated data plane for TVoDSL, formerly TV over Ethernet from end to
end. So can be Internet but private network too. The key feature is that
we dissociate network plane until end user Set-Top-Box, so end user
can't put materials or influence mcast group subscription. I simply
focus the paper on TVoDSL but can be used on every ethernet network.

> for a dynamic as opposed to a static group assignment ?)

Currently we are using static group assignment. We are providing to TV
Operator a mcast range they can use for streaming. As an ISP/telco, we
are managing our network and Point Of Presence.

> this from at least some of the operators.

Each TV Operator is managing is own TV Service Plane, so they are using
the mcast group at their conveniance into the "Assigned MCAST group"
range. Then they simply update service plane generating new ARDP
ServiceID messages to refresh backbone TV Service Plane representation.

Multicast for TVoDSL (in our use) is localized into a private/dedicated
network, so we are controling mcast group we are routing. We are not
routing multicast for others operator, we are routing mcast group for TV
Operator with a POP in our TV network.

Best regards,
Alexandre

-- 
Alexandre Cassen <[email-masked]>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:11:54 -0500

Hello;

> Operator with a POP in our TV network.

(Speaking solely as a group member.)

An Internet RFC documents  a solution that can be used by anyone,  
potentially for many different
purposes. While you may not be interested in routing external  
multicast groups into your
network, others may be, and similarly for dynamic versus static group  
assignments.
(That does not mean that the solution has to adopt this, just that  
your or anyone's service
model is not sufficient reason why not.)

Of course, if the WG does adopt this as a document, the direction  
that it takes and the solutions
that if offers is then under the WG's control.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Alexandre Cassen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:27:05 +0200

> model is not sufficient reason why not.)

Currently, this is not in our focus but still open, no problems. Can be
a great extension.

> that it takes and the solutions that if offers is then under the
> WG's control.

sure, no problems. I just introduced the way we are using the protocol
(thousand of DSLAMs), if it need to be extended/adapted/modified... no
problems all ideas/point of view are welcome, this is why we submitted.

regards,
Alexandre

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:45:21 -0500

Hello;

> problems all ideas/point of view are welcome, this is why we  

Thank  you. I think that this is exactly the right attitude to have,  
and will try and
read and comment carefully on your draft soon.

Regards
Marshall