Tsunemasa Hayashi, NTT Internet Draft Haixiang He, Nortel Document:draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt Hiroaki Satou, NTT Expires: August 12, 2006 Hiroshi Ohta, NTT Susheela Vaidya, Cisco Systems February 8, 2006 Requirements for Accounting, Authentication and Authorization in Well Managed IP Multicasting Services Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006) Abstract This memo presents requirements in the area of accounting and access control for multicasting. General requirements for Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 1.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 accounting capabilities including quality-of-service (QoS) related issues are listed. 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 I-D. It is proposed that this I-D be used as a starting point for further discussion on these issues. Table of Contents Copyright Notice..................................................1 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Definitions and Abbreviations..................................4 2.1 Definitions...................................................4 2.2 Abbreviations.................................................4 3. Problem Statement..............................................5 3.1 Accounting Issues............................................5 3.2 Relationship with Secure Multicasting (MSEC).................7 3.3 Regarding Access Media and User Separation...................7 4. General AAA-related Functional Requirements for IP Multicast...7 5. Application Example and its Specific Requirements.............13 5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are different entities (companies)...............................13 5.1.1 Network Model for Multicast Content Delivery Service.......13 5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements......................15 5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements..................................15 5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements...............................16 5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements..............................17 5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are the same entities (companies)................................17 6. Acknowledgments...............................................18 7. IANA Considerations...........................................19 8. Security Considerations.......................................19 9. Conclusion....................................................19 Normative References.............................................19 Authors' Addresses...............................................20 Full Copyright Statement.........................................21 Intellectual Property............................................21 1. Introduction This I-D will present general functional requirements related to accounting, authentication and authorization issues in IP multicasting networks. A multicast network which fulfills all of Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 2.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 these requirements will be called a "fully AAA enabled" IP multicasting network. Fulfillment of all or some of the requirements will make possible more robust management of IP multicasting networks, and as such these capabilities contribute to the provision of well-managed IP multicasting services. IP multicasting is becoming widely used as a method to save network resources such as bandwidth or CPU processing power of the sender's server for cases where a large volume of information needs to be distributed to a large number of receivers. This trend can be observed both in enterprise use and in broadband services provided by network operator/service providers. Distance learning within a university and in-house (in-company) sharing of multimedia information are examples of enterprise use. In these examples, sources generate high-bit rate (e.g., 6Mbit/s) streaming information. When the number of receivers becomes large, such systems do not scale well without multicasting. On the other hand, a Content Delivery Service (CDS) is an example of a broadband service provided by network operators/service providers. Distribution of movies and other video programs to each user are typical services. Each channel requires large bandwidth (e.g., 6Mbit/s) and operator/service providers need to provide many channels to make their service attractive. In addition, the number of receivers is large (e.g., more than a few thousands). The system to provide this service does not scale well without multicasting. As such, multicasting can be useful to make the network more scalable when a large volume of information needs to be distributed to a large number of receivers. However, multicasting according to current standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] and MLDv2[2]) has drawbacks compared to unicasting when one applies it to commercial services. Accounting of each user's actions is not possible with multicasting as it is with unicasting. Accounting consists of grasping each user's behavior, when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel she/he receives, etc. IP multicasting can be used to distribute free material efficiently, but there are limitations to multicasting in usage Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 3.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 models where usage accounting is necessary, such as many commercial applications. These limitations have prevented the widespread deployment of multicasting. Alternatively, one could develop and use a proprietary solution to address this issue. However, non-standard solutions have drawbacks in terms of interoperability or cost of development and maintenance. Without accounting capability in multicasting, information providers desiring accounting capability are forced to use unicasting even when multicasting would otherwise be desirable from a bandwidth/server resource perspective. If multicasting could be used with user-based accounting capabilities, its applicability would be greatly widened. This I-D first describes problems on accounting issues in multicasting. Then the general requirements for this capability including QoS related issues are listed. Finally, application examples which could benefit from multicasting with accounting capabilities are shown. It is proposed that this I-D be used as a starting point for a discussion on these issues. 2. Definitions and Abbreviations 2.1 Definitions Authentication: action for identifying a user as a genuine one. Authorization: action for giving permission for a user to access content or the network. Eligible user: Users may be eligible (permitted) to access resources because of the attributes they have (e.g., delivery may require possession of the correct password or digital certificate), their equipment has (e.g., content may only be eligible to players that can decode H.264 or 3GPP streams), their edge network has (e.g., HD content may only be eligible to users with 10 Mbps or faster edge connections), or because of where they are in network topology (e.g., HD content may not be eligible for users across congested links) or in actual geography (e.g., content may only be Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 4.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 licensed for distribution to certain countries), and, of course, a mix of attributes may be required for eligibility or ineligibility. User-based accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior, when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel she/he receives, etc. 2.2 Abbreviations ASM: Any-Source Multicast CDS: Content Delivery Service CP: Content Provider IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery NSP: Network Service Provider SSM: Single-Source Multicast QoS: Quality of Service 3. Problem Statement 3.1 Accounting Issues In unicast communications, the server (information source) can identify the client (information receiver) and only permits connection by an eligible client when this type of access control is necessary. In addition, when necessary, the server can grasp what the client is doing (e.g., connecting to the server, starting reception, what information the client is receiving, terminating reception, disconnecting from the server). Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 5.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 On the other hand, in multicast communication with current standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] or MLDv2[2]) the server just feeds its information to the multicast router [as in Fig.1]. Then, the multicast router replicates the data to any link which has at least one client requesting the information. In this process, no eligibility check is conducted. Any client can receive information just by requesting it. In other words, the current standards do not provide multicasting with authorization or access control capabilities sufficient to meet the requirements of accounting. +--------+ | user |\ +--------+ \ \+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ |Multi-| |Multi-| |Multi-| | | | user |---|cast |----|cast |----|cast |----|Server| +--------+ |router| |router| |router| | | /+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ / | user |/ +--------+ 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 provided in unicast networks should be provided in multicast networks. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 6.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 3.2 Relationship with Secure Multicasting (MSEC) In many cases, content encryption (e.g. MSEC) is an effective method for preventing unauthorized access to original content (in other words, the ability to decode data to return it to its generally usable form.) This I-D presents requirements for multicasting networks in the areas of 1) access control to prevent unauthorized access to the network, and 2) accounting to grasp user activity. The functional requirements do not require content encryption although it might solve some of the related problems. At this point, it is not yet clear whether encryption would be part of a solution and if so, what other components (if any) would also be required. 3.3 Regarding Access Media and User Separation The requirements defined in this memo apply to solutions that provide user separation either through physical separation provided by dedicated access media between the user and multicast router (see Fig. 1) or else through logical separation in cases of shared physical access media (e.g. using VLAN). However, IP multicast solutions with shared Layer 2 access media between the user and multicast router and no logical user separation (e.g. Ethernet with shared links and no VLAN) are out of scope of this memo. Nevertheless, some of the requirements in this memo defined for multicasting may also be relevant to multicasting over links without either physical or logical user separation. Therefore in the interest of modularity and flexibility, solutions addressing the requirements of this memo may also take into account application to multicasting without such user separation. 4. General AAA-related Functional Requirements for IP Multicasting In consideration of the issues presented in section 3, the following requirements have been derived: (1) User identification The network should be able to identify each user when they attempt to access the service so that necessary access controlling actions Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 7.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 can be applied. Also, it is necessary to identify the source (user) of each request (e.g., join/leave) for user accounting purposes. With current protocols (IGMP/MLD), the sender cannot distinguish which receivers (end hosts) are actually receiving the information. The sender must rely on the information from the multicasting routers. This can be complicated if the sender and routers are maintained by different entities. (2) Issue of Network Resource Protection In order to guarantee certain QoS it is important for network providers to be able to protect their network resources from being wasted, (either maliciously or accidentally). For comparisons sake, in the case of unicast this issue can be resolved e.g. by using RSVP. (2.1) Access control The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling actions when an eligible user requests an action (such as a join or a leave.) The network should be able to reject any action requested from an ineligible user. (2.2) Control mechanism to support bandwidth of multicast stream from a physical port of edge router or switch The network may need to control the combined bandwidth for all groups at the physical port of the edge router or switch so that these given physical entities are not overflowed with traffic. (2.3) Control mechanism of number of groups delivered from a physical port of edge router and switch Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 8.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 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 number of groups delivered from a physical port of an edge router and a switch so that the combined bandwidth between content servers and multicast routers can be within the limit. For comparisons sake, in the case of unicast this issue can be resolved e.g. by using RSVP. (3) User Authentication The network should be able to authenticate a user. (4) User Authorization 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 by a CP to prevent content access by ineligible users. In the case that the NSP may wish to provide a service based on guaranteed delivery, the NSP would not want to waste its network resources on ineligible users. (5) Accounting and Billing In many commercial multicast situations, NSPs would like to be able to precisely grasp network resource consumption and CPs would like to be able to precisely grasp the content consumption by end- users. Such information might be used for identifying highly viewed content for advertising revenue, ratings calculations, programming decisions, etc., as well as billing and auditing purposes. Also content and network providers may wish to provide users with access to their usage history. To assemble such an understanding of end-user behavior, it is necessary to precisely log information such as who (host/user) is accessing what content at what time (join action) until what time (leave action). The result of the access-control decision (e.g. results of authorization) would also be valuable information. The Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 9.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 desired degree of logging precisions would depend on the application used. (5.1) How to share user information For commercial multicast applications it is important for NSP and CP to be able to share information regarding user's behaviour (as described in (5) in standardized ways. (6) Notification to Users of the Result of the Join Request It should be possible to provide information to the user about the status of his/her join request(granted/denied/other). (7) Service and Terminal Portability Depending on the service, networks should allow for a user to receive a service from different places and/or with a different terminal device. (8) Support of ASM and SSM Both ASM (G), and SSM (S,G) should be supported as multicast models. (9) Admission Control for Join Action In order to maintain a predefined QoS level, depending on the NSP's policy, an edge router should be able to control the number of streams it serves to a user, and total bandwidth consumed to that user. For example if the number of streams being served to a certain user has reached the limit defined by the NSP's policy, then the edge router should not accept a subsequent "join" until one of the existing streams is terminated. Similarly, if the NSP is controlling by per-user bandwidth consumption, then a subsequent "join" should not be accepted if delivery of the Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 10.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 requested stream would push the consumed bandwidth over the NSP policy-defined limit. (10) Channel Join Latency and Leave Latency Commercial implementations of IP multicasting are likely to have strict requirements in terms of user experience. Join latency is the time between when a user sends a "join" request and when the requested data streaming first reaches the user. Leave latency is the time between when a user sends a "leave" signal and when the network stops streaming to the user. Leave and Join latencies impact the acceptable end-user experience for fast channel surfing. In an IP-TV application, users are not going to be receptive to a slow response time when changing channels. If there are policies for controlling the number of simultaneous streams a user may access then channel surfing will be determined by the join and leave latencies. Furthermore, leave affects resource consumption: with a low "leave latency" network providers could minimize streaming content when there are no audiences. It is important that any overhead for authentication, authorization, and access-control be minimized at the times of joining and leaving multicast groups so as to achieve join and leave latencies acceptable in terms of user experience. For example this is important in an IP-TV application, because users are not going to be receptive to a slow response time when changing channels. (11) Scalability Solutions that are used for well managed IP multicasting should scale enough to support the needs of content providers and network operators. (12) Small Impact on the Existing Products Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 11.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 Impact on the existing products (e.g., protocols, software, etc.) should be as minimal as possible. Ideally the NSP should be able to use the same infrastructure (such as access control) to support commercial multicast services for the so called "triple play" services: voice (VoIP), video, and broadband Internet access services. When a CP requires the NSP to provide a level of QoS surpassing "best effort" delivery or to provide special services (e.g., to limited users with specific attributes), certain parameters of the CDS may be defined by a contractual relation between the NSP and the CP. However, just as for best-effort unicast, multicast allows for content sourced by CPs without a contractual relation with the NSP. Therefore, solutions addressing the requirements defined in this memo should not make multicasting without AAA features obsolete. NSPs may offer tiered services, with higher QOS,accounting, authentication, etc., depending on contractual relation with the CPs. It is therefore important that Multicast AAA and QoS functions be as modular and flexible as possible. (13) Deployable as Alternative to Unicast IP Multicasting would ideally be available as an alternative to IP unicasting when the "on-demand" nature of unicasting is not required. Therefore interfaces to multicasting should allow for easy integration into CDS systems that support unicasting. Especially equivalent interfaces for authorization, access control and accounting capabilities should be provided. (14) Multicast Replication The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication is being done on an access-node (e.g. DSLAMs or OLTs). Specific functional requirements for each application can be derived from the above general requirements. An example is shown in the section 5. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 12.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 5. Application Example and its Specific Requirements This section shows an application example which could benefit from multicasting. Then, specific functional requirements related to user-based accounting capabilities are derived. 5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are different entities (companies) Broadband access networks such as ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) or FTTH (Fiber to the Home) have been deployed widely in recent years. Content Delivery Service (CDS) is expected to be a major application provided through broadband access networks. Because many services such as television broadcasting require huge bandwidth (e.g., 6Mbit/s) and processing power at content server, IP multicast is used as an efficient delivery mechanism for CDS. One way to provide high quality CDS is to use closed networks ("walled-garden" model). This subsection shows an example where CP and NSP are different entities (companies). 5.1.1 Network Model for Multicast Content Delivery Service As shown in Fig.2, networks for CDS contain three different types of entities: Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider (NSP), and end user clients. An NSP owns the network resources (infrastructure). It accommodates content providers on one side and accommodates end user clients on the other side. NSP provides the network for CDS to two other entities (i.e., CPs and end user clients). A CP provides content to each end-user client through the network of NSPs. NSPs are responsible for delivering the content to end user clients, and for controlling the network resources. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 13.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ | CP | | CP | | CP | | #1 | | #2 | | #3 | | +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ | | | content | | | | content | | | | content | | | | server | | | | server | | | | server | | | +-------+-+ | | +----+----+ | | +-+-------+ | +----------\--+ +------|------+ +--/----------+ \ | / \ | / <- network/network \ | / interface +------------- \ ------ | ------ / ----+ | \ | / | | NSP +-+-----+-----+-+ | | | Provider Edge | | | +-------+-------+ | +-----------------+ | | |---| Information | | | | | server | | +--+------+---+ | +-----------------+ | | User Edge | | | +--+---+---+--+ | | / | \ | +------------- / --- | --- \ ----------+ / | \ / | \ <- user/network interface / | \ +---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+ |client #a | |client #b | |client #c | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ End user A End user B End user C Fig.2 Example of CDS network configuration The NSP provides the information server for all multicast channels, and a CP gives detailed channel information (e.g., Time table of each channel) to the information server. An end-user client gets the information from the information server. In this model, multicast is used in the NSP's CDS network, and there are two different contracts. One is the contract between the NSP and the Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 14.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 end user which permits the user to access the basic network resources of the NSP. Another contract is between the CP and end user to permit the user to subscribe to multicast content. Because the CP and NSP are different entities, and the NSP generally does 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 user/network interface, the CP cannot control the user/network interface. An end user may want to move to another place, or may want to change her/his device (client) anytime without interrupting her/his reception of services. As such, IP Multicast network should support portability capabilities. 5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements To have a successful business providing multicast, there are some specific requirements for the IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service. 5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements Since the CP and NSP are different business entities, they need to share the revenue. Such a revenue sharing business relationship requires accurate and near real-time accounting information about the end user clients' activity on accessing the content services. The accounting information should be per content/usage-base to enable varied billing and charging methods. The user accessing particular content is represented by the user's activities of joining or leaving the corresponding multicast group/channel ( or ). In multicast networks, only NSPs can collect group joining or leaving activities in real-time through their last-hop multicast access edge devices. The NSPs can transfer the accounting information to related CPs for them to generate end user billing information. The normal AAA technology can be used to transfer the 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.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 account information of an end-user client for content access is maintained by the CP. An end user client may have different user accounts for different CPs. The account is usually in the format of (username, password) so an end user client can access the content services from anywhere. For example, an end user client can access the CP from different NSPs. It should be noted 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 are plural cases of the model depending on the trust relationship between the NSP and CP, and additional service requirements such as a certain QoS level guarantee or service/terminal portability. A mechanism is necessary to allow a CP and NSP to grasp each user's behavior independently. Another requirement related to accounting is the ability to notify a user when accounting really starts. When a "free preview" capability is supported, accounting may not start at the same time as the user's joining of the stream. 5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements The NSPs are responsible for delivering content and are required to meet certain QoS levels or SLA (service level agreements). For example, video quality is very sensitive to packet loss. So if an NSP cannot meet the quality requirements due to limited network resources if it accepts an additional user request, the NSP should reject that end user's access request to avoid charging the existing (i.e., already joined) user for bad services. For example, if an access line is shared by several users, an additional user's join may cause performance degradation for other users. If the incoming user is the first user on an edge node, this will initiate the transmission of data between the multicast router and the edge node and this extra network traffic may cause performance degradation. There may also be policies that do not necessarily give highest priority to the "first-come" users, and these should also be considered. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 16.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 In order to protect network resources against misuse/malicious access and maintain a QoS level, appropriate admission control function for traffic policing purposes is necessary so that the NSP can accept or reject the request without degrading the QoS beyond the specified level. 5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements There are two different aims of authentication. One is authentication for network access, and another one is for content access. For the first case of authentication, NSP has a AAA server, and for the second case, each CP has a AAA server. In some cases, CPs delegate (outsource) the operation of user authentication to NSPs. As such, in addition to network access, multicast group access by a user also needs to be authenticated. Content authentication should support the models where: - authentication for multicast content is outsourced to the NSP. - authentication for multicast content access is operated by the content provider 5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are the same entities (companies) Another application example is the case where the content provider (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 the same entity, some of the requirements indicated in 4.1 are not required. This model does not require the following items: - Communication method between sender (server) and user (end host). Since they belong to the same company, they can use all the available information. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 17.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 - Methods to share user-related information between network providers and content providers. +-----------------------------------------------------+ | +---------+ | | | content | | | | server | | | +----+----+ | | | | | CP+NSP +-------+-------+ | | | Provider Edge | | | +-------+-------+ +--------------------+ | | | | Information server | | | | +--------------------+ | | +-------------+ | | | User Edge | | | +--+---+---+--+ | | / | \ | +----------- / --- | --- \ ---------------------------+ / | \ / | \ <- user/network interface / | \ +---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+ |user #a | |user #b | |user #c | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ End user A End user B End user C Fig.3 Example of CDS network configuration 6. Acknowledgments The authors of this draft would like to express their appreciation to Pekka Savola of Netcore Ltd., Daniel Alvarez, and Toerless Eckert of Cisco Systems, Sam Sambasivan of AT&T, Sanjay Wadhwa of Juniper, Tom Anschutz and Steven Wright of BellSouth, Nicolai Leymann of T-Systems, Carlos Garcia Braschi of Telefonica Empresas, Marshall Eubanks of Multicast Techno, Stephen Rife of NTT and David Meyer in his role as mboned WG chair, as well as their thanks to the participants of the MBONED WG in general. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 18.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. 7. IANA Considerations This I-D does not raise any IANA consideration issues. 8. Security Considerations Accounting capabilities can be used to enhance the security of multicast networks by excluding ineligible clients from the networks. 9. Conclusion This I-D describes general requirements for providing "well managed" IP multicasting services. It lists issues related to accounting, authentication, authorization and admission control for multicast content delivery. Content Delivery Services with different business models is cited as an application which could benefit from the capabilities of "well managed" 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 [1] B. Cain, et. al., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC3376, October 2002. [2] R. Vida, et. al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC3810, June 2004. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 19.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 Authors' Addresses Tsunemasa Hayashi NTT Network Innovation Laboratories 1-1 Hikarino'oka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa, 239-0847 Japan Phone: +81 46 859 8790 Email: hayashi.tsunemasa@lab.ntt.co.jp Haixiang He Nortel 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01801, USA Phone: +1 978 288 7482 Email: haixiang@nortel.com Hiroaki Satou NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan Phone: +81 422 59 4683 Email: satou.hiroaki@lab.ntt.co.jp Hiroshi Ohta NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan Phone: +81 422 59 3617 Email: ohta.hiroshi@lab.ntt.co.jp Susheela Vaidya Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: +1 408 525 1952 Email: svaidya@cisco.com Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 20.] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-04.txt February 8, 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with 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 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 21.]