Network Working Group M. Day Internet-Draft Cisco Expires: March 2, 2001 D. Gilletti Entera September 2000 Content Distribution Network Peering Scenarios draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-01.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 March 2, 2001. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document sets forth several logical and detailed scenarios to be considered when evaluating systems and protocols for CDN peering. Discussion List Information This document and related documents are discussed on the cdn mailing list. To join the list, send mail to cdn-request@ops.ietf.org. To contribute to the discussion, send mail to cdn@ops.ietf.org. The archives are at ftp://ops.ietf.org/pub/lists/cdn.*. Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Fundamental Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Logical Peering Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Expanding Existing CDN Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION PEERING Across Multiple DISTIBUTING CDNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3 ACCOUNTING PEERING Across Multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs . . . . . 5 3.4 PUBLISHER peers w/multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 1. Introduction This document presents several logical scenarios which are intended to describe the potential configurations that can be realized when peering CDNs. These logical scenarios describe how various entities may combine to provide a complete CDN solution. These scenarios answer two distinct needs: 1. To provide some concrete examples of what CDN peering is, and 2. To provide a basis for evaluating CDN peering proposals. Each of the logical peering scenarios gives an indication of how the various CDN elements are combined. From [2] these elements are: 1. REDIRECTION SYSTEM 2. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 3. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM The peering scenarios presented in this document are also framed by the following concepts: 1. Content Has Value 2. Distribution Has Value 3. Users Have Value At present, the references to the above concepts are only employed when they directly affect the nature of the peering scenario. A reader who is interested in a detailed description of these concepts is referred to [3]. Terms in ALL CAPS are defined in [1]. Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 2. Fundamental Concepts There are many potential peering configurations that can be imagined for peered CDNs. All of these configurations MUST adhere to the following concepts: There is only one FIRST-REDIRECTION system for a given set of CONTENT: In order to prevent potential conflicts this document assumes that there is one and only one FIRST-REDIRECTION SYSTEM. All other REDIRECTION SYSTEMs MUST honor this relationship. There may be more than one ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: These scenarios assume that multiple ACCOUNTING ENTITIES may coexist. These entities may require specific ACCOUNTING information or they may share this information depending upon the function that they provide. There may be more than one DISTRIBUTING CDN: These scenarios assume that multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs may coexist. They further assume that these CDNs may have peering relationships that are outside the scope of the scenario being discussed. Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 3. Logical Peering Scenarios This section provides several logical peering scenarios that may arise in peered CDN implementations. 3.1 Expanding Existing CDN Footprint This scenario considers the case where two or more existing CDNs wish to peer in order to provide an increased scale and reach. It assumes that both of them already provide REDIRECTION, DISTRIBUTION, and ACCOUNTING services and that they will continue to provide these services to existing customers. In this scenario it is assumed that the peering relationship between all entities is comprised of; REDIRECTION PEERING, DISTRIBUTION PEERING, and ACCOUNTING PEERING. It is also worthwhile to consider that any one of these peered CDNs may also have other peering arrangements which may or may not be transitive to peering relationships created for the above purpose. 3.2 ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION PEERING Across Multiple DISTIBUTING CDNs This scenario describes the case where a single entity performs ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION functions but has no inherent DISTRIBUTION capabilities. This entity must therefore peer with one or more DISTRIBUTING CDNs in order to provide a complete solution. In this scenario the entity which operates the ACCOUNTING SYSTEM and REDIRECTION SYSTEM, at a minumum, would enter into REDIRECTION PEERING and ACCOUNTING PEERING relationships with each of the DISTRIBUTING CDNs. The entity which operates the ACCOUNTING and REDIRECTION SYSTEMs could also play an active role in managing the DISTRIBUTION. In this case an additional DISTRIBUTION PEERING relationships are required. It is worth noting that the REDIRECTION SYSTEM discussed here is typically the FIRST-REDIRECTION SYSTEM although that is not a requirement. It is also worthwhile to consider that any one of these peered entities may also have other peering arrangements which may or may not be transitive to peering relationships created for the above purpose. 3.3 ACCOUNTING PEERING Across Multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs This scenario describes the case where a single ACCOUNTING SYSTEM Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 which provides a settlement/clearing-house function wishes to peer w/mulitple DISTRIBUTING CDNs. For the purposes of this scenario it is not necessary to consider the specifics of REDIRECTION PEERING. In this scenario the entity which operates the ACCOUNTING SYSTEM would enter into ACCOUNTING PEERING relationships w/one or more DISTRIBUTING CDNs. 3.4 PUBLISHER peers w/multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs This scenario describes the case where a PUBLISHER wishes to directly enter into peering relationships w/multiple DISTRIBUTING CDNs. In this scenario it is assumed that the PUBLISHER operates as the FIRST-REDIRECTION SYSTEM for its CONTENT although it is possible that this function may be designated to one of the DISTRIBUTING CDNs. In this scenario the PUBLISHER would enter into; DISTRIBUTION PEERING, ACCOUNTING PEERING, and REDIRECTION peering with one or more DISTRIBUTING CDNs. [EDITORS NOTE: Need more scenarios/examples!!!] Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 4. Security Considerations This document describes scenarios for use in evaluating CDN peering proposals. As such, it does not propose any solutions which might have security concerns. This docment assumes that any peering solutions which are derived within the context of Content Alliance effort will be compliant with the trust model given in [4]. Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 5. Conclusion The set of scenarios contained within this document illustrate the complete set of requirements which should be met in the design of CDN peering system(s). Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 6. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the contributions and comments of Fred Douglis (AT&T), Raj Nair (Cisco), Gary Tomlinson (Entera), and John Scharber (Entera). Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 References [1] Day, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "A Model for Content Peering", draft-day-cdnp-model-02.txt (work in progress), September 2000, . [2] Green, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "CDN Peering Architectural Overview", draft-green-cdnp-framework-01.txt (work in progress), September 2000, . [3] Gilletti, D., Nair, R. and J. Scharber, "Accounting Models for CDN Peering", draft-gilletti-cdnp-accounting-models-02.txt (work in progress), September 2000, . [4] Aboba, B., Arkko, J. and D. Harrington, "Introduction to Accounting Management", draft-ietf-aaa-acct-06.txt (work in progress), June 2000, . Authors' Addresses Mark S. Day Cisco Systems 135 Beaver Street Waltham, MA 02452 US Phone: PHONE EMail: markday@cisco.com Don Gilletti Entera, Inc. 40971 Encyclopedia Circle Fremont, CA 94538 US Phone: +1 510 770 5281 EMail: don@entera.com Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CDNPS September 2000 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Day & Gilletti Expires March 2, 2001 [Page 11]