idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport' ) ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 6. Security Considerations' ) ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 7. IANA Considerations' ) ** There are 20 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 119 has weird spacing: '...Catalog all ...' == Line 409 has weird spacing: '...Ability to s...' == Line 422 has weird spacing: '...tically selec...' == Line 483 has weird spacing: '...Ability to s...' == Line 636 has weird spacing: '... for multi...' == (5 more instances...) == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 30, 2016) is 2757 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4609' on line 1221 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4607' on line 1218 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4604' on line 1211 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC7450' on line 1225 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2784' on line 1202 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'BCP38' on line 1228 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC4271' on line 1208 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'BCP41' on line 1232 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'MDH-04' on line 1241 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'Traceroute' on line 1242 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC3618' on line 1205 looks like a reference Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 12 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 MBONED Working Group Percy S. Tarapore 2 Internet Draft Robert Sayko 3 Intended status: BCP AT&T 4 Expires: March 30, 2017 Greg Shepherd 5 Toerless Eckert 6 Cisco 7 Ram Krishnan 8 Brocade 9 September 30, 2016 11 Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points 12 draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-05.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 17 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 21 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 22 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 25 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 26 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 27 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 30, 2017. 31 Copyright Notice 33 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 34 document authors. All rights reserved. 36 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 37 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 38 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 39 publication of this document. Please review these documents 40 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 41 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 42 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 43 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 44 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 46 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 48 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 49 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 50 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 51 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 52 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 53 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 54 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 55 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 56 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 57 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 58 than English. 60 Abstract 62 This document examines the use of multicast across inter-domain 63 peering points. The objective is to describe the setup process for 64 multicast-based delivery across administrative domains and document 65 supporting functionality to enable this process. 67 Table of Contents 69 1. Introduction...................................................3 70 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport.......4 71 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast..........6 72 3.1. Native Multicast..........................................6 73 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel.....................8 74 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 75 Enabled........................................................9 76 3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast 77 Enabled.......................................................10 78 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through 79 AD-2..........................................................12 80 4. Supporting Functionality......................................14 81 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines15 82 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines...................15 83 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects..................16 84 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point.....17 85 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels.....................17 86 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 87 ..............................................................19 88 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines...........................20 89 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines.................21 90 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines.........................22 91 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines22 92 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines...25 93 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics...............................25 95 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 97 6. Security Considerations.......................................26 98 7. IANA Considerations...........................................27 99 8. Conclusions...................................................27 100 9. References....................................................27 101 9.1. Normative References.....................................27 102 9.2. Informative References...................................28 103 10. Acknowledgments..............................................28 105 1. Introduction 107 Several types of applications (e.g., live video streaming, software 108 downloads) are well suited for delivery via multicast means. The use 109 of multicast for delivering such applications offers significant 110 savings for utilization of resources in any given administrative 111 domain. End user demand for such applications is growing. Often, 112 this requires transporting such applications across administrative 113 domains via inter-domain peering points. 115 The objective of this Best Current Practices document is twofold: 116 o Describe the technical process and establish guidelines for 117 setting up multicast-based delivery of applications across inter- 118 domain peering points via a set of use cases. 119 o Catalog all required information exchange between the 120 administrative domains to support multicast-based delivery. This 121 enables operators to initiate necessary processes to support 122 inter-domain peering with multicast. 124 The scope and assumptions for this document are stated as follows: 126 o For the purpose of this document, the term "peering point" 127 refers to an interface between two networks/administrative 128 domains over which traffic is exchanged between them. A 129 Network-Network Interface (NNI) is an example of a peering 130 point. 131 o Administrative Domain 1 (AD-1) is enabled with native 132 multicast. A peering point exists between AD-1 and AD-2. 133 o It is understood that several protocols are available for this 134 purpose including PIM-SM [RFC4609], Protocol Independent 135 Multicast - Source Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM) [RFC4607], 136 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC4604], and 137 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC4604]. 138 o As described in Section 2, the source IP address of the 139 multicast stream in the originating AD (AD-1) is known. Under 141 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 143 this condition, PIM-SSM use is beneficial as it allows the 144 receiver's upstream router to directly send a JOIN message to 145 the source without the need of invoking an intermediate 146 Rendezvous Point (RP). Use of SSM also presents an improved 147 threat mitigation profile against attack, as described in 148 [RFC4609]. Hence, in the case of inter-domain peering, it is 149 recommended to use only SSM protocols. 150 o AD-1 and AD-2 are assumed to adopt compatible protocols. The 151 use of different protocols is beyond the scope of this 152 document. 153 o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450] is setup at the 154 peering point if either the peering point or AD-2 is not 155 multicast enabled. It is assumed that an AMT Relay will be 156 available to a client for multicast delivery. The selection of 157 an optimal AMT relay by a client is out of scope for this 158 document. Note that AMT use is necessary only when native 159 multicast is unavailable in the peering point (Use Case 3.3) 160 or in the downstream administrative domain (Use Cases 3.4, and 161 3.5). 162 o The collection of billing data is assumed to be done at the 163 application level and is not considered to be a networking 164 issue. The settlements process for end user billing and/or 165 inter-provider billing is out of scope for this document. 166 o Inter-domain network connectivity troubleshooting is only 167 considered within the context of a cooperative process between 168 the two domains. 170 This document also attempts to identify ways by which the peering 171 process can be improved. Development of new methods for improvement 172 is beyond the scope of this document. 174 2. Overview of Inter-domain Multicast Application Transport 176 A multicast-based application delivery scenario is as follows: 177 o Two independent administrative domains are interconnected via a 178 peering point. 179 o The peering point is either multicast enabled (end-to-end 180 native multicast across the two domains) or it is connected by 181 one of two possible tunnel types: 182 o A Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel [RFC2784] 183 allowing multicast tunneling across the peering point, or 185 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 187 o An Automatic Multicast Tunnel (AMT) [RFC7450]. 188 o The application stream originates at a source in Domain 1. The 189 source IP address is known. 190 o An End User associated with Domain 2 requests the application. 191 It is assumed that the application is suitable for delivery via 192 multicast means (e.g., live steaming of major events, software 193 downloads to large numbers of end user devices, etc.) 194 o The request is communicated to the application source which 195 provides the relevant multicast delivery information to the EU 196 device. This information is in the form of appropriate 197 metadata. At a minimum, this metadata includes the {Source, 198 Group} or (S,G) information relevant to the multicast stream. 199 It may also contain additional information that the application 200 client can use to locate the source and join the stream. The 201 delivery method by which the source transmits this information 202 is determined via arrangements between the source and the two 203 Administrative Domains. The description of the delivery method 204 and the format of the metadata is out of scope for this 205 document. 206 o The application client in the EU device then joins the 207 multicast stream distributed by the application source in 208 domain 1 utilizing the (S,G) information provided in the 209 manifest file. 211 Note that domain 2 may be an independent network domain (e.g., Tier 212 1 network operator domain) or it could also be an Enterprise network 213 operated by a single customer. The peering point architecture and 214 requirements may have some unique aspects associated with the 215 Enterprise case. 217 The Use Cases describing various architectural configurations for 218 the multicast distribution along with associated requirements is 219 described in section 3. Unique aspects related to the Enterprise 220 network possibility will be described in this section. A 221 comprehensive list of pertinent information that needs to be 222 exchanged between the two domains to support various functions 223 enabling the application transport is provided in section 4. 225 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 227 3. Inter-domain Peering Point Requirements for Multicast 229 The transport of applications using multicast requires that the 230 inter-domain peering point is enabled to support such a process. 231 There are five possible Use Cases for consideration. 233 3.1. Native Multicast 235 This Use Case involves end-to-end Native Multicast between the two 236 administrative domains and the peering point is also native 237 multicast enabled - Figure 1. 239 ------------------- ------------------- 240 / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ 241 / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ 242 / \ / \ 243 | +----+ | | | 244 | | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+ 245 | | AS |------>| BR |-|---------|->| BR |-------------|-->| EU | 246 | | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+ 247 \ +----+ / \ / 248 \ / \ / 249 \ / \ / 250 ------------------- ------------------- 252 AD = Administrative Domain (Independent Autonomous System) 253 AS = Application (e.g., Content) Multicast Source 254 BR = Border Router 255 I1 = AD-1 and AD-2 Multicast Interconnection (e.g., MBGP) 256 I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection 258 Figure 1 - Content Distribution via End to End Native Multicast 260 Advantages of this configuration are: 262 o Most efficient use of bandwidth in both domains 264 o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when 265 compared to unicast transmissions. 267 From the perspective of AD-1, the one disadvantage associated with 268 native multicast into AD-2 instead of individual unicast to every EU 270 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 272 in AD-2 is that it does not have the ability to count the number of 273 End Users as well as the transmitted bytes delivered to them. This 274 information is relevant from the perspective of customer billing and 275 operational logs. It is assumed that such data will be collected by 276 the application layer. The application layer mechanisms for 277 generating this information need to be robust enough such that all 278 pertinent requirements for the source provider and the AD operator 279 are satisfactorily met. The specifics of these methods are beyond 280 the scope of this document. 282 Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: 284 a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended as 285 a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility. 287 b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled network 288 environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly by the 289 two domains to permit the transit of non-rate adaptive multicast 290 traffic. If this is not the case, then it is recommended that the 291 multicast traffic should support rate-adaption. 293 c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two domains 294 is typically determined by local policies associated with each 295 domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider and AD-2 is an 296 enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies for traffic 297 delivery to, but not traffic reception from AD-2. Another example 298 is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers specified content 299 to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted by contract. 301 d. Relevant information on multicast streams delivered to End Users 302 in AD-2 is assumed to be collected by available capabilities in 303 the application layer. The precise nature and formats of the 304 collected information will be determined by directives from the 305 source owner and the domain operators. 307 e. The interconnection of AD-1 and AD-2 should minimally follow 308 guidelines for traffic filtering between autonomous systems 309 [BCP38]. Filtering guidelines specific to the multicast control- 310 plane and data-plane are described in section 6. 312 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 314 3.2. Peering Point Enabled with GRE Tunnel 316 The peering point is not native multicast enabled in this Use Case. 317 There is a Generic Routing Encapsulation Tunnel provisioned over the 318 peering point. In this case, the interconnection I1 between AD-1 and 319 AD-2 in Figure 1 is multicast enabled via a Generic Routing 320 Encapsulation Tunnel (GRE) [RFC2784] and encapsulating the multicast 321 protocols across the interface. The routing configuration is 322 basically unchanged: Instead of BGP (SAFI2) across the native IP 323 multicast link between AD-1 and AD-2, BGP (SAFI2) is now run across 324 the GRE tunnel. 326 Advantages of this configuration: 328 o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in both domains although not as 329 efficient as the fully native multicast Use Case. 331 o Fewer devices in the path traversed by the multicast stream when 332 compared to unicast transmissions. 334 o Ability to support only partial IP multicast deployments in AD-1 335 and/or AD-2. 337 o GRE is an existing technology and is relatively simple to 338 implement. 340 Disadvantages of this configuration: 342 o Per Use Case 3.1, current router technology cannot count the 343 number of end users or the number bytes transmitted. 345 o GRE tunnel requires manual configuration. 347 o The GRE must be established prior to stream starting. 349 o The GRE tunnel is often left pinned up 351 Architectural guidelines for this configuration include the 352 following: 354 Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use 355 Case 3.1. Two additional guidelines are as follows: 357 e. GRE tunnels are typically configured manually between peering 358 points to support multicast delivery between domains 360 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 362 f. It is recommended that the GRE tunnel (tunnel server) 363 configuration in the source network is such that it only 364 advertises the routes to the application sources and not to the 365 entire network. This practice will prevent unauthorized delivery 366 of applications through the tunnel (e.g., if application - e.g., 367 content - is not part of an agreed inter-domain partnership). 369 3.3. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - Both Domains Multicast 370 Enabled 372 Both administrative domains in this Use Case are assumed to be 373 native multicast enabled here; however the peering point is not. The 374 peering point is enabled with an Automatic Multicast Tunnel. The 375 basic configuration is depicted in Figure 2. 377 ------------------- ------------------- 378 / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ 379 / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Multicast Enabled) \ 380 / \ / \ 381 | +----+ | | | 382 | | | +------+ | | +------+ | +----+ 383 | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|->| AG |-------------|-->| EU | 384 | | | +------+ | I1 | +------+ |I2 +----+ 385 \ +----+ / \ / 386 \ / \ / 387 \ / \ / 388 ------------------- ------------------- 390 AR = AMT Relay 391 AG = AMT Gateway 392 I1 = AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 393 I2 = AD-2 and EU Multicast Connection 395 Figure 2 - AMT Interconnection between AD-1 and AD-2 397 Advantages of this configuration: 399 o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1. 401 o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to 402 implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following: 404 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 406 o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across 407 the peering point. 409 o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing 410 policies. 412 Disadvantages of this configuration: 414 o Per Use Case 3.1 (AD-2 is native multicast), current router 415 technology cannot count the number of end users or the number of 416 bytes transmitted to all end users. 418 o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) may be introduced 419 into the path if these services are not incorporated in the 420 existing routing nodes. 422 o Currently undefined mechanisms for the AG to automatically select 423 the optimal AR. 425 Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: 427 Guidelines (a) through (d) are the same as those described in Use 428 Case 3.1. In addition, 430 e. It is recommended that AMT Relay and Gateway pairs be 431 configured at the peering points to support multicast delivery 432 between domains. AMT tunnels will then configure dynamically 433 across the peering points once the Gateway in AD-2 receives the 434 (S, G) information from the EU. 436 3.4. Peering Point Enabled with an AMT - AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled 438 In this AMT Use Case, the second administrative domain AD-2 is not 439 multicast enabled. This implies that the interconnection between AD- 440 2 and the End User is also not multicast enabled as depicted in 441 Figure 3. 443 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 445 ------------------- ------------------- 446 / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ 447 / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ 448 / \ / Enabled) \ 449 | +----+ | | | 450 | | | +------+ | | | +----+ 451 | | AS |------>| AR |-|---------|-----------------------|-->|EU/G| 452 | | | +------+ | | |I2 +----+ 453 \ +----+ / \ / 454 \ / \ / 455 \ / \ / 456 ------------------- ------------------- 458 AS = Application Multicast Source 459 AR = AMT Relay 460 EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device 461 I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AD-1 through Non-Multicast 462 Enabled AD-2. 464 Figure 3 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway 466 This Use Case is equivalent to having unicast distribution of the 467 application through AD-2. The total number of AMT tunnels would be 468 equal to the total number of End Users requesting the application. 469 The peering point thus needs to accommodate the total number of AMT 470 tunnels between the two domains. Each AMT tunnel can provide the 471 data usage associated with each End User. 473 Advantages of this configuration: 475 o Highly efficient use of bandwidth in AD-1. 477 o AMT is an existing technology and is relatively simple to 478 implement. Attractive properties of AMT include the following: 480 o Dynamic interconnection between Gateway-Relay pair across 481 the peering point. 483 o Ability to serve clients and servers with differing 484 policies. 486 o Each AMT tunnel serves as a count for each End User and is also 487 able to track data usage (bytes) delivered to the EU. 489 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 491 Disadvantages of this configuration: 493 o Additional devices (AMT Gateway and Relay pairs) are introduced 494 into the transport path. 496 o Assuming multiple peering points between the domains, the EU 497 Gateway needs to be able to find the "correct" AMT Relay in AD- 498 1. 500 Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: 502 Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use 503 Case 3.1. 505 d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such 506 that the AMT Gateway at the End User device is able to find the 507 correct AMT Relay in AD-1 across the peering points. The 508 application client in the EU device is expected to supply the (S, 509 G) information to the Gateway for this purpose. 511 e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for 512 the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast 513 streams delivered to End Users in AD-2. 515 3.5. AD-2 Not Multicast Enabled - Multiple AMT Tunnels Through AD-2 517 This is a variation of Use Case 3.4 as follows: 519 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 521 ------------------- ------------------- 522 / AD-1 \ / AD-2 \ 523 / (Multicast Enabled) \ / (Non-Multicast \ 524 / \ / Enabled) \ 525 | +----+ | |+--+ +--+ | 526 | | | +------+ | ||AG| |AG| | +----+ 527 | | AS |------>| AR |-|-------->||AR|------------->|AR|-|-->|EU/G| 528 | | | +------+ | I1 ||1 | I2 |2 | |I3 +----+ 529 \ +----+ / \+--+ +--+ / 530 \ / \ / 531 \ / \ / 532 ------------------- ------------------- 534 AS = Application Source 535 AR = AMT Relay in AD-1 536 AGAR1 = AMT Gateway/Relay node in AD-2 across Peering Point 537 I1 = AMT Tunnel Connecting AR in AD-1 to GW in AGAR1 in AD-2 538 AGAR2 = AMT Gateway/Relay node at AD-2 Network Edge 539 I2 = AMT Tunnel Connecting Relay in AGAR1 to GW in AGAR2 540 EU/G = Gateway client embedded in EU device 541 I3 = AMT Tunnel Connecting EU/G to AR in AGAR2 543 Figure 4 - AMT Tunnel Connecting AD-1 AMT Relay and EU Gateway 545 Use Case 3.4 results in several long AMT tunnels crossing the entire 546 network of AD-2 linking the EU device and the AMT Relay in AD-1 547 through the peering point. Depending on the number of End Users, 548 there is a likelihood of an unacceptably large number of AMT tunnels 549 - and unicast streams - through the peering point. This situation 550 can be alleviated as follows: 552 o Provisioning of strategically located AMT nodes at the edges of 553 AD-2. An AMT node comprises co-location of an AMT Gateway and an 554 AMT Relay. One such node is at the AD-2 side of the peering point 555 (node AGAR1 in Figure 4). 557 o Single AMT tunnel established across peering point linking AMT 558 Relay in AD-1 to the AMT Gateway in the AMT node AGAR1 in AD-2. 560 o AMT tunnels linking AMT node AGAR1 at peering point in AD-2 to 561 other AMT nodes located at the edges of AD-2: e.g., AMT tunnel I2 563 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 565 linking AMT Relay in AGAR1 to AMT Gateway in AMT node AGAR2 in 566 Figure 4. 568 o AMT tunnels linking EU device (via Gateway client embedded in 569 device) and AMT Relay in appropriate AMT node at edge of AD-2: 570 e.g., I3 linking EU Gateway in device to AMT Relay in AMT node 571 AGAR2. 573 The advantage for such a chained set of AMT tunnels is that the 574 total number of unicast streams across AD-2 is significantly reduced 575 thus freeing up bandwidth. Additionally, there will be a single 576 unicast stream across the peering point instead of possibly, an 577 unacceptably large number of such streams per Use Case 3.4. However, 578 this implies that several AMT tunnels will need to be dynamically 579 configured by the various AMT Gateways based solely on the (S,G) 580 information received from the application client at the EU device. A 581 suitable mechanism for such dynamic configurations is therefore 582 critical. 584 Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows: 586 Guidelines (a) through (c) are the same as those described in Use 587 Case 3.1. 589 d. It is recommended that proper procedures are implemented such 590 that the various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT 591 nodes in AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT 592 nodes as appropriate. The application client in the EU device is 593 expected to supply the (S, G) information to the Gateway for this 594 purpose. 596 e. The AMT tunnel capabilities are expected to be sufficient for 597 the purpose of collecting relevant information on the multicast 598 streams delivered to End Users in AD-2. 600 4. Supporting Functionality 602 Supporting functions and related interfaces over the peering point 603 that enable the multicast transport of the application are listed in 604 this section. Critical information parameters that need to be 605 exchanged in support of these functions are enumerated along with 606 guidelines as appropriate. Specific interface functions for 607 consideration are as follows. 609 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 611 4.1. Network Interconnection Transport and Security Guidelines 613 The term "Network Interconnection Transport" refers to the 614 interconnection points between the two Administrative Domains. The 615 following is a representative set of attributes that will need to be 616 agreed to between the two administrative domains to support 617 multicast delivery. 619 o Number of Peering Points 621 o Peering Point Addresses and Locations 623 o Connection Type - Dedicated for Multicast delivery or shared with 624 other services 626 o Connection Mode - Direct connectivity between the two AD's or via 627 another ISP 629 o Peering Point Protocol Support - Multicast protocols that will be 630 used for multicast delivery will need to be supported at these 631 points. Examples of protocols include eBGP [RFC4271] and MBGP 632 [RFC4271]. 634 o Bandwidth Allocation - If shared with other services, then there 635 needs to be a determination of the share of bandwidth reserved 636 for multicast delivery. When determining the appropriate 637 bandwidth allocation, parties should consider that design of a 638 multicast protocol suitable for live video streaming which is 639 consistent with Congestion Control Principles [BCP41], especially 640 in the presence of potentially malicious receivers, is still an 641 open research problem. 643 o QoS Requirements - Delay/latency specifications that need to be 644 specified in an SLA. 646 o AD Roles and Responsibilities - the role played by each AD for 647 provisioning and maintaining the set of peering points to support 648 multicast delivery. 650 4.2. Routing Aspects and Related Guidelines 652 The main objective for multicast delivery routing is to ensure that 653 the End User receives the multicast stream from the "most optimal" 654 source [INF_ATIS_10] which typically: 656 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 658 o Maximizes the multicast portion of the transport and minimizes 659 any unicast portion of the delivery, and 661 o Minimizes the overall combined network(s) route distance. 663 This routing objective applies to both Native and AMT; the actual 664 methodology of the solution will be different for each. Regardless, 665 the routing solution is expected to be: 667 o Scalable 669 o Avoid/minimize new protocol development or modifications, and 671 o Be robust enough to achieve high reliability and automatically 672 adjust to changes/problems in the multicast infrastructure. 674 For both Native and AMT environments, having a source as close as 675 possible to the EU network is most desirable; therefore, in some 676 cases, an AD may prefer to have multiple sources near different 677 peering points, but that is entirely an implementation issue. 679 4.2.1 Native Multicast Routing Aspects 681 Native multicast simply requires that the Administrative Domains 682 coordinate and advertise the correct source address(es) at their 683 network interconnection peering points(i.e., border routers). An 684 example of multicast delivery via a Native Multicast process across 685 two administrative Domains is as follows assuming that the 686 interconnecting peering points are also multicast enabled: 688 o Appropriate information is obtained by the EU client who is a 689 subscriber to AD-2 (see Use Case 3.1). This information is in 690 the form of metadata and it contains instructions directing the 691 EU client to launch an appropriate application if necessary, and 692 also additional information for the application about the source 693 location and the group (or stream) id in the form of the "S,G" 694 data. The "S" portion provides the name or IP address of the 695 source of the multicast stream. The metadata may also contain 696 alternate delivery information such as specifying the unicast 697 address of the stream. 699 o The client uses the join message with S,G to join the multicast 700 stream [RFC4604]. 702 To facilitate this process, the two AD's need to do the following: 704 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 706 o Advertise the source id(s) over the Peering Points 708 o Exchange relevant Peering Point information such as Capacity and 709 Utilization (Other??) 711 o Implement compatible multicast protocols to ensure proper 712 multicast delivery across the peering points. 714 4.2.2 GRE Tunnel over Interconnecting Peering Point 716 If the interconnecting peering point is not multicast enabled and 717 both ADs are multicast enabled, then a simple solution is to 718 provision a GRE tunnel between the two ADs - see Use Case 3.2.2. 719 The termination points of the tunnel will usually be a network 720 engineering decision, but generally will be between the border 721 routers or even between the AD 2 border router and the AD 1 source 722 (or source access router). The GRE tunnel would allow end-to-end 723 native multicast or AMT multicast to traverse the interface. 724 Coordination and advertisement of the source IP is still required. 726 The two AD's need to follow the same process as described in 4.2.1 727 to facilitate multicast delivery across the Peering Points. 729 4.2.3 Routing Aspects with AMT Tunnels 731 Unlike Native (with or without GRE), an AMT Multicast environment is 732 more complex. It presents a dual layered problem because there are 733 two criteria that should be simultaneously met: 735 o Find the closest AMT relay to the end-user that also has 736 multicast connectivity to the content source and 738 o Minimize the AMT unicast tunnel distance. 740 There are essentially two components to the AMT specification: 742 o AMT Relays: These serve the purpose of tunneling UDP multicast 743 traffic to the receivers (i.e., End Points). The AMT Relay will 744 receive the traffic natively from the multicast media source and 745 will replicate the stream on behalf of the downstream AMT 746 Gateways, encapsulating the multicast packets into unicast 747 packets and sending them over the tunnel toward the AMT Gateway. 748 In addition, the AMT Relay may perform various usage and 749 activity statistics collection. This results in moving the 750 replication point closer to the end user, and cuts down on 752 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 754 traffic across the network. Thus, the linear costs of adding 755 unicast subscribers can be avoided. However, unicast replication 756 is still required for each requesting endpoint within the 757 unicast-only network. 759 o AMT Gateway (GW): The Gateway will reside on an on End-Point - 760 this may be a Personal Computer (PC) or a Set Top Box (STB). The 761 AMT Gateway receives join and leave requests from the 762 Application via an Application Programming Interface (API). In 763 this manner, the Gateway allows the endpoint to conduct itself 764 as a true Multicast End-Point. The AMT Gateway will encapsulate 765 AMT messages into UDP packets and send them through a tunnel 766 (across the unicast-only infrastructure) to the AMT Relay. 768 The simplest AMT Use Case (section 3.3) involves peering points that 769 are not multicast enabled between two multicast enabled ADs. An AMT 770 tunnel is deployed between an AMT Relay on the AD 1 side of the 771 peering point and an AMT Gateway on the AD 2 side of the peering 772 point. One advantage to this arrangement is that the tunnel is 773 established on an as needed basis and need not be a provisioned 774 element. The two ADs can coordinate and advertise special AMT Relay 775 Anycast addresses with each other - though they may alternately 776 decide to simply provision Relay addresses, though this would not be 777 an optimal solution in terms of scalability. 779 Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5 describe more complicated AMT situations as 780 AD-2 is not multicast enabled. For these cases, the End User device 781 needs to be able to setup an AMT tunnel in the most optimal manner. 782 Using an Anycast IP address for AMT Relays allows for all AMT 783 Gateways to find the "closest" AMT Relay - the nearest edge of the 784 multicast topology of the source. An example of a basic delivery 785 via an AMT Multicast process for these two Use Cases is as follows: 787 o Appropriate metadata is obtained by the EU client application. The 788 metadata contains instructions directing the EU client to an 789 ordered list of particular destinations to seek the requested 790 stream and, for multicast, specifies the source location and the 791 group (or stream) ID in the form of the "S,G" data. The "S" 792 portion provides the URI (name or IP address) of the source of the 793 multicast stream and the "G" identifies the particular stream 794 originated by that source. The metadata may also contain alternate 795 delivery information such as the address of the unicast form of 796 the content to be used, for example, if the multicast stream 797 becomes unavailable. 799 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 801 o Using the information from the metadata, and possibly information 802 provisioned directly in the EU client, a DNS query is initiated in 803 order to connect the EU client/AMT Gateway to an AMT Relay. 805 o Query results are obtained, and may return an Anycast address or a 806 specific unicast address of a relay. Multiple relays will 807 typically exist. The Anycast address is a routable "pseudo- 808 address" shared among the relays that can gain multicast access to 809 the source. 811 o If a specific IP address unique to a relay was not obtained, the 812 AMT Gateway then sends a message (e.g., the discovery message) to 813 the Anycast address such that the network is making the routing 814 choice of particular relay - e.g., closest relay to the EU. (Note 815 that in IPv6 there is a specific Anycast format and Anycast is 816 inherent in IPv6 routing, whereas in IPv4 Anycast is handled via 817 provisioning in the network. Details are out of scope for this 818 document.) 820 o The contacted AMT Relay then returns its specific unicast IP 821 address (after which the Anycast address is no longer required). 822 Variations may exist as well. 824 o The AMT Gateway uses that unicast IP address to initiate a three- 825 way handshake with the AMT Relay. 827 o AMT Gateway provides "S,G" to the AMT Relay (embedded in AMT 828 protocol messages). 830 o AMT Relay receives the "S,G" information and uses the S,G to join 831 the appropriate multicast stream, if it has not already subscribed 832 to that stream. 834 o AMT Relay encapsulates the multicast stream into the tunnel 835 between the Relay and the Gateway, providing the requested content 836 to the EU. 838 Note: Further routing discussion on optimal method to find "best AMT 839 Relay/GW combination" and information exchange between AD's to be 840 provided. 842 4.3. Back Office Functions - Provisioning and Logging Guidelines 844 Back Office refers to the following: 846 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 848 o Servers and Content Management systems that support the delivery 849 of applications via multicast and interactions between ADs. 850 o Functionality associated with logging, reporting, ordering, 851 provisioning, maintenance, service assurance, settlement, etc. 853 4.3.1 Provisioning Guidelines 855 Resources for basic connectivity between ADs Providers need to be 856 provisioned as follows: 858 o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned to support multicast-based 859 delivery across ADs. 860 o Sufficient capacity must be provisioned for connectivity between 861 all supporting back-offices of the ADs as appropriate. This 862 includes activating proper security treatment for these back- 863 office connections (gateways, firewalls, etc) as appropriate. 864 o Routing protocols as needed, e.g. configuring routers to support 865 these. 867 Provisioning aspects related to Multicast-Based inter-domain 868 delivery are as follows. 870 The ability to receive requested application via multicast is 871 triggered via receipt of the necessary metadata. Hence, this 872 metadata must be provided to the EU regarding multicast URL - and 873 unicast fallback if applicable. AD-2 must enable the delivery of 874 this metadata to the EU and provision appropriate resources for this 875 purpose. 877 Native multicast functionality is assumed to be available across 878 many ISP backbones, peering and access networks. If however, native 879 multicast is not an option (Use Cases 3.4 and 3.5), then: 881 o EU must have multicast client to use AMT multicast obtained either 882 from Application Source (per agreement with AD-1) or from AD-1 or 883 AD-2 (if delegated by the Application Source). 884 o If provided by AD-1/AD-2, then the EU could be redirected to a 885 client download site (note: this could be an Application Source 886 site). If provided by the Application Source, then this Source 887 would have to coordinate with AD-1 to ensure the proper client is 888 provided (assuming multiple possible clients). 890 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 892 o Where AMT Gateways support different application sets, all AD-2 893 AMT Relays need to be provisioned with all source & group 894 addresses for streams it is allowed to join. 895 o DNS across each AD must be provisioned to enable a client GW to 896 locate the optimal AMT Relay (i.e. longest multicast path and 897 shortest unicast tunnel) with connectivity to the content's 898 multicast source. 900 Provisioning Aspects Related to Operations and Customer Care are 901 stated as follows. 903 Each AD provider is assumed to provision operations and customer 904 care access to their own systems. 906 AD-1's operations and customer care functions must have visibility 907 to what is happening in AD-2's network or to the service provided by 908 AD-2, sufficient to verify their mutual goals and operations, e.g. 909 to know how the EU's are being served. This can be done in two ways: 911 o Automated interfaces are built between AD-1 and AD-2 such that 912 operations and customer care continue using their own systems. This 913 requires coordination between the two AD's with appropriate 914 provisioning of necessary resources. 915 o AD-1's operations and customer care personnel are provided access 916 directly to AD-2's system. In this scenario, additional provisioning 917 in these systems will be needed to provide necessary access. 918 Additional provisioning must be agreed to by the two AD-2s to support 919 this option. 921 4.3.2 Application Accounting Guidelines 923 All interactions between pairs of ADs can be discovered and/or be 924 associated with the account(s) utilized for delivered applications. 925 Supporting guidelines are as follows: 927 o A unique identifier is recommended to designate each master 928 account. 929 o AD-2 is expected to set up "accounts" (logical facility generally 930 protected by login/password/credentials) for use by AD-1. Multiple 931 accounts and multiple types/partitions of accounts can apply, e.g. 932 customer accounts, security accounts, etc. 934 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 936 4.3.3 Log Management Guidelines 938 Successful delivery of applications via multicast between pairs of 939 interconnecting ADs requires that appropriate logs will be exchanged 940 between them in support. Associated guidelines are as follows. 942 AD-2 needs to supply logs to AD-1 per existing contract(s). Examples 943 of log types include the following: 945 o Usage information logs at aggregate level. 946 o Usage failure instances at an aggregate level. 947 o Grouped or sequenced application access 948 performance/behavior/failure at an aggregate level to support 949 potential Application Provider-driven strategies. Examples of 950 aggregate levels include grouped video clips, web pages, and sets 951 of software download. 952 o Security logs, aggregated or summarized according to agreement 953 (with additional detail potentially provided during security 954 events, by agreement). 955 o Access logs (EU), when needed for troubleshooting. 956 o Application logs (what is the application doing), when needed for 957 shared troubleshooting. 958 o Syslogs (network management), when needed for shared 959 troubleshooting. 961 The two ADs may supply additional security logs to each other as 962 agreed to by contract(s). Examples include the following: 964 o Information related to general security-relevant activity which 965 may be of use from a protective or response perspective, such as 966 types and counts of attacks detected, related source information, 967 related target information, etc. 968 o Aggregated or summarized logs according to agreement (with 969 additional detail potentially provided during security events, by 970 agreement) 972 4.4. Operations - Service Performance and Monitoring Guidelines 974 Service Performance refers to monitoring metrics related to 975 multicast delivery via probes. The focus is on the service provided 976 by AD-2 to AD-1 on behalf of all multicast application sources 977 (metrics may be specified for SLA use or otherwise). Associated 978 guidelines are as follows: 980 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 982 o Both AD's are expected to monitor, collect, and analyze service 983 performance metrics for multicast applications. AD-2 provides 984 relevant performance information to AD-1; this enables AD-1 to 985 create an end-to-end performance view on behalf of the multicast 986 application source. 988 o Both AD's are expected to agree on the type of probes to be used 989 to monitor multicast delivery performance. For example, AD-2 may 990 permit AD-1's probes to be utilized in the AD-2 multicast service 991 footprint. Alternately, AD-2 may deploy its own probes and relay 992 performance information back to AD-1. 994 o In the event of performance degradation (SLA violation), AD-1 may 995 have to compensate the multicast application source per SLA 996 agreement. As appropriate, AD-1 may seek compensation from AD-2 997 if the cause of the degradation is in AD-2's network. 999 Service Monitoring generally refers to a service (as a whole) 1000 provided on behalf of a particular multicast application source 1001 provider. It thus involves complaints from End Users when service 1002 problems occur. EU's direct their complaints to the source provider; 1003 in turn the source provider submits these complaints to AD-1. The 1004 responsibility for service delivery lies with AD-1; as such AD-1 1005 will need to determine where the service problem is occurring - its 1006 own network or in AD-2. It is expected that each AD will have tools 1007 to monitor multicast service status in its own network. 1009 o Both AD's will determine how best to deploy multicast service 1010 monitoring tools. Typically, each AD will deploy its own set of 1011 monitoring tools; in which case, both AD's are expected to inform 1012 each other when multicast delivery problems are detected. 1014 o AD-2 may experience some problems in its network. For example, 1015 for the AMT Use Cases, one or more AMT Relays may be experiencing 1016 difficulties. AD-2 may be able to fix the problem by rerouting 1017 the multicast streams via alternate AMT Relays. If the fix is not 1018 successful and multicast service delivery degrades, then AD-2 1019 needs to report the issue to AD-1. 1021 o When problem notification is received from a multicast 1022 application source, AD-1 determines whether the cause of the 1023 problem is within its own network or within the AD-2 domain. If 1024 the cause is within the AD-2 domain, then AD-1 supplies all 1026 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 1028 necessary information to AD-2. Examples of supporting information 1029 include the following: 1031 o Kind of problem(s) 1033 o Starting point & duration of problem(s). 1035 o Conditions in which problem(s) occur. 1037 o IP address blocks of affected users. 1039 o ISPs of affected users. 1041 o Type of access e.g., mobile versus desktop. 1043 o Locations of affected EUs. 1045 o Both AD's conduct some form of root cause analysis for multicast 1046 service delivery problems. Examples of various factors for 1047 consideration include: 1049 o Verification that the service configuration matches the 1050 product features. 1052 o Correlation and consolidation of the various customer 1053 problems and resource troubles into a single root service 1054 problem. 1056 o Prioritization of currently open service problems, giving 1057 consideration to problem impact, service level agreement, 1058 etc. 1060 o Conduction of service tests, including one time tests or a 1061 series of tests over a period of time. 1063 o Analysis of test results. 1065 o Analysis of relevant network fault or performance data. 1067 o Analysis of the problem information provided by the customer 1068 (CP). 1070 o Once the cause of the problem has been determined and the problem 1071 has been fixed, both AD's need to work jointly to verify and 1072 validate the success of the fix. 1074 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 1076 o Faults in service could lead to SLA violation for which the 1077 multicast application source provider may have to be compensated 1078 by AD-1. Subsequently, AD-1 may have to be compensated by AD-2 1079 based on the contract. 1081 4.5. Client Reliability Models/Service Assurance Guidelines 1083 There are multiple options for instituting reliability 1084 architectures, most are at the application level. Both AD's should 1085 work those out with their contract/agreement and with the multicast 1086 application source providers. 1088 Network reliability can also be enhanced by the two AD's by 1089 provisioning alternate delivery mechanisms via unicast means. 1091 5. Troubleshooting and Diagnostics 1093 Any service provider supporting multicast delivery of content should 1094 have the capability to collect diagnostics as part of multicast 1095 troubleshooting practices and resolve network issues accordingly. 1096 Issues may become apparent or identified either through network 1097 monitoring functions or by customer reported problems as described 1098 in section 4.4. 1100 It is expected that multicast diagnostics will be collected 1101 according to currently established practices [MDH-04]. However, 1102 given that inter-domain creates a significant interdependence of 1103 proper networking functionality between providers there does exist a 1104 need for providers to be able to signal/alert each other if there 1105 are any issues noted by either one. 1107 Service providers may also wish to allow limited read-only 1108 administrative access to their routers via a looking-glass style 1109 router proxy to facilitate the debugging of multicast control state 1110 and peering status. Software implementations for this purpose is 1111 readily available [Traceroute] and can be easily extended to provide 1112 access to commonly-used multicast troubleshooting commands in a 1113 secure manner. 1115 The specifics of the notification and alerts are beyond the scope of 1116 this document, but general guidelines are similar to those described 1117 in section 4.4 (Service Performance and Monitoring). Some general 1118 communications issues are stated as follows. 1120 o Appropriate communications channels will be established between 1121 the customer service and operations groups from both AD's to 1123 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 1125 facilitate information sharing related to diagnostic 1126 troubleshooting. 1128 o A default resolution period may be considered to resolve open 1129 issues. Alternately, mutually acceptable resolution periods 1130 could be established depending on the severity of the 1131 identified trouble. 1133 6. Security Considerations 1135 From a security perspective, normal security procedures are expected 1136 to be followed by each AD to facilitate multicast delivery to 1137 registered and authenticated end users. Additionally: 1139 o Encryption - Peering point links may be encrypted per agreement 1140 if dedicated for multicast delivery. 1142 o Security Breach Mitigation Plan - In the event of a security 1143 breach, the two AD's are expected to have a mitigation plan for 1144 shutting down the peering point and directing multicast traffic 1145 over alternated peering points. It is also expected that 1146 appropriate information will be shared for the purpose of securing 1147 the identified breach. 1149 DRM and Application Accounting, Authorization and Authentication 1150 should be the responsibility of the multicast application source 1151 provider and/or AD-1. AD-1 needs to work out the appropriate 1152 agreements with the source provider. 1154 Network has no DRM responsibilities, but might have authentication 1155 and authorization obligations. These though are consistent with 1156 normal operations of a CDN to insure end user reliability, security 1157 and network security. 1159 AD-1 and AD-2 should have mechanisms in place to ensure proper 1160 accounting for the volume of bytes delivered through the peering 1161 point and separately the number of bytes delivered to EUs. For 1162 example, [BCP38] style filtering could be deployed by both AD's to 1163 ensure that only legitimately sourced multicast content is exchanged 1164 between them. 1166 Authentication and authorization of EU to receive multicast content 1167 is done at the application layer between the client application and 1168 the source. This may involve some kind of token authentication and 1169 is done at the application layer independently of the two AD's. If 1170 there are problems related to failure of token authentication when 1172 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 1174 end-users are supported by AD-2, then some means of validating 1175 proper working of the token authentication process (e.g., back-end 1176 servers querying the multicast application source provider's token 1177 authentication server are communicating properly) should be 1178 considered. Implementation details are beyond the scope of this 1179 document. 1181 7. IANA Considerations 1183 8. Conclusions 1185 This Best Current Practice document provides detailed Use Case 1186 scenarios for the transmission of applications via multicast across 1187 peering points between two Administrative Domains. A detailed set of 1188 guidelines supporting the delivery is provided for all Use Cases. 1190 For Use Cases involving AMT tunnels (cases 3.4 and 3.5), it is 1191 recommended that proper procedures are implemented such that the 1192 various AMT Gateways (at the End User devices and the AMT nodes in 1193 AD-2) are able to find the correct AMT Relay in other AMT nodes as 1194 appropriate. Section 4.3 provides an overview of one method that 1195 finds the optimal Relay-Gateway combination via the use of an 1196 Anycast IP address for AMT Relays. 1198 9. References 1200 9.1. Normative References 1202 [RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina, 1203 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000 1205 [RFC3618] B. Fenner, et al, "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol", 1206 RFC 3618, October 2003 1208 [RFC4271] Y. Rekhter, et al, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", 1209 RFC 4271, January 2006 1211 [RFC4604] H. Holbrook, et al, "Using Internet Group Management 1212 Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery 1213 Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, 1214 August 2006 1216 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 1218 [RFC4607] H. Holbrook, et al, "Source Specific Multicast", RFC 4607, 1219 August 2006 1221 [RFC4609] P. Savola, et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse 1222 Mode (PIM-SM) Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements", 1223 RFC 4609, August 2006 1225 [RFC7450] G. Bumgardner, "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450, 1226 February 2015 1228 [BCP38] P. Ferguson, et al, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating 1229 Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", 1230 BCP: 38, May 2000 1232 [BCP41] S. Floyd, "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, September 1233 2000 1235 9.2. Informative References 1237 [INF_ATIS_10] "CDN Interconnection Use Cases and Requirements in a 1238 Multi-Party Federation Environment", ATIS Standard A-0200010, 1239 December 2012 1241 [MDH-04] D. Thaler, et al, "Multicast Debugging Handbook", IETF I-D 1242 draft-ietf-mboned-mdh-04.txt, May 2000 [Traceroute] 1243 http://traceroute.org/#source%20code 1245 10. Acknowledgments 1247 IETF I-D Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points September 2016 1249 Authors' Addresses 1251 Percy S. Tarapore 1252 AT&T 1253 Phone: 1-732-420-4172 1254 Email: tarapore@att.com 1256 Robert Sayko 1257 AT&T 1258 Phone: 1-732-420-3292 1259 Email: rs1983@att.com 1261 Greg Shepherd 1262 Cisco 1263 Phone: 1264 Email: shep@cisco.com 1266 Toerless Eckert 1267 Cisco 1268 Phone: 1269 Email: eckert@cisco.com 1271 Ram Krishnan 1272 Brocade 1273 Phone: 1274 Email: ramk@brocade.com