Operations and Management Area Working Group LM. Contreras Internet-Draft O. Gonzalez Intended status: Experimental Telefonica Expires: January 7, 2016 July 6, 2015 Collaborative Interface between Network Operators and CDNs draft-contreras-opsawg-collaborative-interface-00 Abstract The absence of appropriate mechanisms for information exchange between Network Operators and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) and content providers leads to avoidable inefficiency for the delivery of contents to end users in situations like congestion, selection of best distributed delivery end point, etc. This document describes the need of an information exchange interface between Network Operators and CDNs to collaborate in order to provide the best service quality to the end users. 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 January 7, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Collaborative Interface July 2015 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 described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Collaborative interface scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. QoS / QoE information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Topology notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Congestion notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.4. Optimization capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction The lack of mechanisms for exchange of information between Network Operators and CDNs prevents from having optimal delivery of content to end users. For instance, CDNs typically select the delivery end point for a given user based on the internal status (e.g., workload) of the end points and possibly some inferred geographical information from the IP address of the end user. In contrast to this, in case of having a mechanism for inform the CDN about the truly specific location of the end user or the status of the network links connecting the delivery point with the end user in terms of congestion, the selection of the end point, the content codification, etc, could be improved to the extent of taking optimal decisions according to the real status of the network. Then it seems valuable to define an interface that can assist on the decisions for both the Network Operators and the CDNs in order to serve the contents in the best possible way to the end user. This document propose the specification of such an information exchange interface between Network Operators and CDNs. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Collaborative Interface July 2015 3. Collaborative interface scope The intended interface should enable an appropriate network management to handle constantly increasing traffic growth. It is expected that such kind of interface could create both technical and cost efficiencies for both CDNs and network operators. The capabilities enabled by this collaborative interface are worthwhile for both Network Operators and CDNs. o For Network Operators: ability to access content metadata in order to optimize quality in network, offer better user experience, etc. o For CDNs: ability to access users' data in order to optimize end point selection, content format, etc. To reach that goal, the following sections describe in detail information that SHOULD be supported by the collaborative interface. 3.1. QoS / QoE information The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to facilitate the provision of differentiated QoS / QoE for a given content or end user. The expected benefits are the improvements on performance and QoE perceived by the end user. 3.2. Topology notification The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to provide topological information of the network to the CDN and topological information of the caches to the Network Operator. The expected benefits are the enabling of traffic engineering in the network, and the potential implementation of network planning in real time, e.g., in case of a massive event. 3.3. Congestion notification The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to provide link occupancy information that could impact on the delivery of contents. The expected benefits are the assistance on content delivery decisions with network-aware information, and the improvement on performance and QoE perceived by the end user. 3.4. Optimization capabilities The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to enable optimization mechanisms for traffic delivery. The expected benefits Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Collaborative Interface July 2015 are the provision of content adaptation fitting to the available network resources. 4. Security Considerations To be completed 5. IANA Considerations To be completed 6. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Authors' Addresses Luis M. Contreras Telefonica Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n Sur-3 building, 3rd floor Madrid 28050 Spain Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com URI: http://people.tid.es/LuisM.Contreras/ Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Telefonica Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n Sur-3 building, 3rd floor Madrid 28050 Spain Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4]