One document matched: draft-bertrand-cdni-use-cases-00.txt
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Bertrand
Internet-Draft E. Stephan
Intended status: Informational France Telecom - Orange
Expires: July 17, 2011 January 13, 2011
Use Cases for Content Distribution Network Interconnection
draft-bertrand-cdni-use-cases-00
Abstract
This document depicts use cases for content delivery network (CDN)
interconnection based on Orange experiments. The use cases are
divided in the two following categories. Category 1 use cases
present situations that require a footprint extension for existing
CDNs. Category 2 use cases include additional situations where CDN
interconnection would be desirable in a longer term.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. High Level Use Cases for Multi-CDN Systems . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Footprint Extension Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. CDN Interconnection inside one CDSP . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. CDN Interconnection between CDSPs . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Additional Potential Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. CDN Interconnection for CDN Overload Handling . . . . 6
2.2.2. CDN Interconnection for CDN Resiliency . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Inter-Silos CDN Interconnection inside one CDSP . . . 7
3. Experiment with Existing CDN Solutions and Lessons Learned . . 8
3.1. Description of the Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Gaps in Existing Solutions and Need for Specifications . . 9
4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
1. Introduction
This document depicts use cases for content delivery network (CDN)
interconnection based on Orange experiments. The use cases are
divided in the two following categories. Category 1 use cases
present situations that require a footprint extension for existing
CDNs. Category 2 use cases include additional situations where CDN
interconnection would be desirable in a longer term.
The present document complements [I-D.watson-cdni-use-cases]. The
two drafts will be merged during the next weeks.
1.1. Terminology
Except for the terms defined below, we adopt the terminology
described in [RFC3466], [RFC3568], and [RFC3570].
Problem statement draft [I-D.jenkins-cdni-problem-statement] defines
a set of terms. Below we recall only the terms used in the memo.
Content Service Provider (CSP):
Provides Content Services to Users. A CSP may own the content made
available as part of the Content Service, or may license content
rights from another party.
Content Service:
The service offered by a CSP. The Content Service encompasses the
complete service which may be wider than just the delivery of items
of Content, e.g. the Content Service also includes any middle-ware,
key distribution, program guide, etc. which may not require any
direct interaction with the CDN.
Content Distribution Network (CDN) / Content Delivery Network (CDN):
A type of network in which the components are arranged for more
effective delivery of content to User Agents.
Content Delivery Service
Set of services offered to CSPs for delivering their contents through
a single Content Delivery Network or a federation of Content Delivery
Networks.
CDN Service Provider (CDSP):
An administrative entity who operates a CDN over a NSP or over the
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
Internet.
CDN federation
Set of CDNs that maintain a CDNI relationship to one another. The
federation of CDNs can interconnect CDNs operated by the same CDSP or
operated by distinct CDSPs.
Authoritative CDN (aCDN):
The CDSP contracted by the CSP for delivery of contents by this CDN
or by its downstream dCDNs.
Downstream CDN (dCDN):
A CDSP which is contacted by an aCDN to achieve the delivery of
content to users.
Access CDN
A CDN that is the connected to the end-user's access and has
information about the end-user's access capabilities and profile.
Delivering CDN
The CDN that delivers the requested content asset to the end-user.
In particular, the delivering CDN can be an access CDN.
CDN Interconnection(CDNI):
Relationship between two CDNs that enables a CDN to provide content
delivery services on behalf of another CDN. It relies on a set of
interfaces over which two CDNs communicate in order to achieve the
delivery of content to users by one CDN (the downstream CDN) on
behalf of another CDN (the upstream CDN).
1.2. Acronyms
[Ed. Note: List of acronyms to be updated later ]
o ISP
o NSP
o STB
o PC
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
o QoS QoE VoD WiFi 3G
2. High Level Use Cases for Multi-CDN Systems
The prevalent use cases for CDNI are presented according to the CDSPs
main reason for interconnecting their CDNs. They are classified
according to their level of priority for the CDSPs.
The CDNI model helps at building a federation of Content Delivery
Networks that collaborate, allowing Content Delivery Service
Providers to offer Content Service Providers a set of consistent
delivery services throughout the CDN Federation. Let's take an
example. CDSP A and B respectively operate CDNa and CDNb. They
establish a CDNI relationship for building a CDN federation CDNa-b
that consists of CDNa and CDNb. CDSP A reaches an agreement with
content service provider CSPa. CDSPa services rely on the CDN
federation CDNa-b. Meanwhile, CDSP B reaches an agreement with
content service provider CSPb. These services also rely on the CDN
federation CDNa-b.
2.1. Footprint Extension Use Cases
2.1.1. CDN Interconnection inside one CDSP
A Large Content delivery service provider (CDSP) operates the CDNs of
a set of subsidiaries from different countries, and these CDNs can
rely on different CDN solutions. To provide a consistent service to
his customers on its whole footprint, in certain circumstances, the
CDSP needs to make its CDNs interoperate.
Note that currently, the distribution of some content is restricted.
For instance, distribution rights for audiovisual content are often
negotiated per country.
[Ed. Note: FIGURE TO BE INCLUDED]
Figure 1: [Ed. Note: Legend to be added ]
2.1.2. CDN Interconnection between CDSPs
Several CDSPs have a geographically limited footprint (e.g., a
country), or do not serve all end-users in a geographic area.
Interconnecting CDNs enables CDSPs to provide their services beyond
their own footprint by relying on other CDNs.
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
End-users in various countries access TV shows episodes. The CSP
that distributes the TV show asks a French CDSP to deliver the serie
to several countries. The French CDSP make an agreement with an
external CDSP that covers North Africa to provide a CDN service for
France and North Africa.
This use case applies to other types of contents like automatic
software updates (browser updates, operating system patches, or virus
database update...).
2.2. Additional Potential Use Cases
2.2.1. CDN Interconnection for CDN Overload Handling
The support of prime time traffic load requires overdimensioning the
CDNs. However, prime time of content distribution may differ between
two CDNs. Therefore, two CDNs may benefit from dimensioning savings
by using resources of the other CDN during the prime time.
During a traffic peak, a CDSP redirects some traffic load toward
another CDSP (for instance, geographically close).
2.2.2. CDN Interconnection for CDN Resiliency
It is important for CDNs to be able to guarantee service continuity
during partial failures (e.g., failure of a set of surrogates). In
partial failure scenarios, a CDSP could redirect some requests toward
another CDN. This downstream CDN must be able to serve the
redirected requests or, depending on traffic management policies, to
forward these requests to the CSP origin server.
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
-------------- --------------
/ CDN1 \ / CDN2 \
| ,---. | | ,---. |
+---+ | . ) | | . ) |
|CSP|*******| |`---'| |__________________| |`---'| |
+---+ | | | | Acquisition | | | |
| ( ) | | ( ) |
| `---' | | `---' |
|+-----------+ | |,------------.|
||Req-Routing| | .|Delivery ||
\+-----------+ / \`------------'/
------------ .-'-----------
| .-'
| --------------- > .-'
| Redirect .-'
| .-'
| .-'
| .-'
| .-'
| .-'
+-----+
| User|
+-----+
Figure 3: Example of CDN Interconnection for failure resiliency
2.2.3. Inter-Silos CDN Interconnection inside one CDSP
ISPs deployed platforms per service or per network technology. They
are deploying CDNs or enhancing existing platforms to CDN. It is
desirable in certain circumstances to share the content or the
resources among these CDNs.
It is desirable to have the ability to provide content to different
terminals and through different access technologies, possibly served
by different CDNs. As depicted in Figure 2, an end-user can use his
tablet to download a VoD through WiFi (1) from CDN1 and then switch
to 3G network (2), which is served by CDN2. The end user should be
able to access the selected VoD content through any access network
technology. Consequently, every considered CDN must have access to
this VoD content. One way to proceed consists in having an ingestion
interface among the CDNs to access the content.
Replication of the requested VoD content in the CDN serving the
terminal (a) enables controlling the QoS of the VoD distribution to
the terminal used by the end-user. In another situation, the serving
of the CoD without replication (b) will save storage resources.
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
The end-user's experience improves thanks to an increase of the
number of situations where the end-user can access the service.
-------------- --------------
/ CDN1 \ / CDN2 \
| Fixed | | Mobile |
| ,---. | | ,---. |
+---+ | . ) | (a) | . ) |
|CSP|****| |`---'| |''''`---------.....>|`---'| |
+---+ | | | -.. Acquisition | | | |
| ( ) | `-.._ | ( ) |
| `---' | `-.. | `---' |
|,------------.| (b) ``-._ |,------------.|
||Delivery || `->. Delivery ||
\`------------'/ \`------------'/
----------+--- -----*--+-----
: * |
: * |
+........+ +--------+
: Tablet : (1) | Tablet |(2)
+........+ +--------+
Figure 2: Example of Inter-Silos CDN Interconnection
3. Experiment with Existing CDN Solutions and Lessons Learned
3.1. Description of the Experiments
To illustrate the realism of the short term scenario described in
previous sections, we present here the summary of some of our CDNI
experiments. These experiments will be further detailed in a
separate draft.
We have interconnected two CDNs (CDN A and CDN B)operated by
different subsidiaries of a large CDSP. The CDNs cover two different
countries henceforth referred to as Country A and Country B. The CDNI
experiment supported the services of two CSPs (CSP A and CSP B).
In our first experiment, CSP A has an agreement with CDN A for
content delivery to end-users located in Country A and Country B. CDN
A has an agreement with CDN B, so that CDN A can delegate to CDN B
the delivery of content from CSP A to end-users located in Country B.
When CDN A receives a content request related to CSP A and from an
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
end-user in Country B, it redirects the end-user to the appropriate
content on CDN B. If CDN B does not have a local copy of the
requested content yet (cache miss), CDN B ingests the content from
CDN A. If CDN A does neither have a local copy of the requested
content, it requests it from the CSP's origin servers before sending
it to CDN B.
In our second experiment, CSP B has an agreement with CDN B for
content delivery to end-users located in Country A and Country B. CDN
B has an agreement with CDN A, so that CDN B can delegate to CDN A
the delivery of content from CSP B to end-users located in Country A.
When CDN B receives a content request related to CSP B and from an
end-user in Country A, it redirects the end-user to the appropriate
content on CDN A. If CDN A does not have a local copy of the
requested content yet (cache miss), it requests the content directly
from the CSP's origin servers.
The differences between the two experiments above are the ingestion
operations and the roles of CDN A and B, which rely on CDN solutions
from different vendors.
3.2. Gaps in Existing Solutions and Need for Specifications
Our experiments have shown that the current CDN technologies suffer
from the following limitations.
o The content management policies must be defined manually.
o The target URLs for the request redirection must also be defined
manually.
o The content ingestion worked only in pull mode...
To address more sophisticated scenarios, we consider that common
interfaces are required for request routing among interconnected CDNs
and for the exchange of content distribution metadata.
4. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the contributors of the EU FP7 OCEAN
project for valuable input and discussions.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
6. Security Considerations
CDN interconnect, as described in this document, has a wide variety
of security issues that should be considered. For example, every
interconnected CDN should be able to assess if it must serve a
delegated request or if this request is delegated by a non-allowed
CDN. The CDNs should also be protected so as to avoid being
overwhelmed by delegated requests. This document focuses on the
technical use cases for CDN interconnect, and therefore, does not
analyze the threats in details.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.jenkins-cdni-problem-statement]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", draft-jenkins-cdni-problem-statement-00 (work
in progress), December 2010.
[I-D.watson-cdni-use-cases]
Watson, G., "CDN Interconnect Use Cases",
draft-watson-cdni-use-cases-00 (work in progress),
January 2011.
[RFC3466] Day, M., Cain, B., Tomlinson, G., and P. Rzewski, "A Model
for Content Internetworking (CDI)", RFC 3466,
February 2003.
[RFC3568] Barbir, A., Cain, B., Nair, R., and O. Spatscheck, "Known
Content Network (CN) Request-Routing Mechanisms",
RFC 3568, July 2003.
[RFC3570] Rzewski, P., Day, M., and D. Gilletti, "Content
Internetworking (CDI) Scenarios", RFC 3570, July 2003.
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDNI Use Cases January 2011
Authors' Addresses
Gilles Bertrand
France Telecom - Orange
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
Issy les moulineaux, 92130
FR
Phone: +33 1 45 29 89 46
Email: gilles.bertrand@orange-ftgroup.com
Stephan Emile
France Telecom - Orange
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion F-22307
France
Email: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com
Bertrand & Stephan Expires July 17, 2011 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 21:06:56 |