ANCP F. Le Faucheur Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track R. Maglione Expires: January 4, 2010 Telecom Italia T. Taylor Huawei July 3, 2009 Additional Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-00.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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. 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 January 4, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Abstract This document specifies the extensions to the Access Node Control Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in the Access Node Control Protocol framework document. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Multicast Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. NAS Initiated Multicast Replication Control Use Case . . . 7 3.1.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2. Message Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Conditional Access and Admission Control Use Case . . . . 8 3.2.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2. Message Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Multicast Flow Reporting Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.2. Message Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. ANCP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Provisioning Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Port Management Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Multicast Replication Control Message . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. Multicast Status Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5. Multicast Admission Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6. Bandwidth Reallocation Request Message . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.7. Bandwidth Transfer Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.8. Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response Messages . 26 4.9. Multicast Flow Query Request and Response Messages . . . . 28 4.10. Delegated Bandwidth Reset Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5. ANCP TLVs and Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.1. Multicast-Service-Profile TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.1.1. Profile Processing At the Access Node . . . . . . . . 34 5.2. Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.3. Bandwidth-Allocation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.4. Bandwidth-Request TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.5. Bandwidth-Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.6. Multicast-Service-Profile-Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.7. Request-Source-IP sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.8. Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.9. Multicast-Flow TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6. New Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7. Example of Messages and Message Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 7.1. Multicast Conditional Access and CAC without AN Bandwidth Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 7.1.1. List/Profile Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 7.1.2. Profile Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7.1.3. Successful Join/Leave Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7.1.4. Admission Control Reject without NAS Response . . . . 53 7.1.5. Admission Control Reject with NAS Response . . . . . . 55 7.2. Example Flows For Bandwidth Delegation . . . . . . . . . . 59 7.2.1. Activation and Provisioning of Delegated Bandwidth . . 60 7.2.2. Successful Request For More Delegated Bandwidth . . . 61 7.2.3. Failed Autonomous Transfer With Reset . . . . . . . . 63 7.3. Example Flows For Multicast Flow Reporting . . . . . . . . 66 7.3.1. Per Port Multicast Flow Reporting . . . . . . . . . . 66 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 1. Introduction [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] defines a framework and requirements for an Access Node control mechanism between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node (e.g. a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM)) in a multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and subscriber-related operations. [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] specifies a protocol for Access Node Control in broadband networks in line with this framework. The Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) specified in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] supports a number of use cases defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] such as the Access Topology Discovery use case, the Access Loop Configuration use case and the Remote Connectivity Test use case. However, it does not support the multicast use cases defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework]. The present document specifies the extensions to the Access Node Control Protocol required for support of these multicast use cases. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 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]. The expression "delegated bandwidth" is used as a shorter way of saying: "the total amount of video bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control". Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 3. Multicast Use Cases Quoting from [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework]: "... the Access Node, aggregation node(s) and the NAS must all be involved in the multicast replication process. This avoids that several copies of the same stream are sent within the access/ aggregation network. In case of an Ethernet-based access/aggregation network, this may, for example, be achieved by means of IGMP snooping or IGMP proxy in the Access Node and aggregation node(s). By introducing IGMP processing in the access/aggregation nodes, the multicast replication process is now divided between the NAS, the aggregation node(s) and Access Nodes. In order to ensure backward compatibility with the ATM-based model, the NAS, aggregation node and Access Node need to behave as a single logical device. This logical device must have exactly the same functionality as the NAS in the ATM access/aggregation network. The Access Node Control Mechanism can be used to make sure that this logical/functional equivalence is achieved by exchanging the necessary information between the Access Node and the NAS. " [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] describes the use cases for ANCP associated with such multicast operations, and identifies the associated ANCP requirements. The present section describes a subset of these use cases as background to facilitate reading of this document, but the reader is refered to [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] for a more exhaustive description of the ANCP multicast use cases. Detailed example message flows can also be found in Section 7. 3.1. NAS Initiated Multicast Replication Control Use Case 3.1.1. Goals One option for multicast handling is for the subscriber to communicate the "join/leave" information to the NAS. This can be done for instance by terminating all subscriber IGMP ([RFC3376]) or MLD ([RFC2710], [RFC3810]) signaling on the NAS. Another example could be a subscriber using some form of application level signaling, which is redirected to the NAS. In any case, this option is transparent to the access and aggregation network. In this scenario, the NAS uses ANCP to create and remove replication state in the AN for efficient multicast replication. Thus, the NAS only sends a single copy of the multicast stream towards the AN, which in turn performs replication to multiple subscribers as instructed by the NAS via ANCP. The NAS first performs conditional access and multicast admission control when processing multicast join requests, and only creates replication state in the AN if admission succeeds. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 3.1.2. Message Flow With the NAS-initiated use case, a Multicast Replication Control Message is sent by the NAS to the AN with a directive to either join or leave one (or more) multicast flow(s). The AN uses a Multicast Status Message to convey the outcome of the directive. Figure 1 illustrates such an ANCP message exchange as well as the associated AN behavior. +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<-------------------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | Multicast-Replication-Crl | | | | (Target,add, Flow 1) | | | |<--------------------------| | Mcast Flow 1 | | |<==========================+ | | | | Multicast-Status | | | |-------------------------->| | | | | | | | | ~ ~ ~ ~ | | | | | | | Multicast-Replication-Crl | | | | (Target,delete, Flow 1) | | | |<--------------------------| | | | | | | Multicast-Status | | | |-------------------------->| Figure 1: NAS Initiated Multicast Replication Control 3.2. Conditional Access and Admission Control Use Case 3.2.1. Goals One option for multicast handling is for the access/aggregation nodes to participate in IGMP/MLD processing (e.g. via IGMP/MLD snooping). In this scenario, on detecting a join/leave request from an enduser for a multicast flow, the AN uses ANCP to request conditional access and admission control decision from the NAS. In turn, after conditional access and admission control checks, the NAS uses ANCP to instruct the AN to change the replication states accordingly. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 3.2.2. Message Flow For support of the conditional access and admission control use case, on detection of an IGMP/MLD Join, the AN sends an Admission Control message to the NAS to request conditional access and admission control check. In case of positive outcome, the NAS sends a Multicast Replication Control Message to the AN with a directive to replicate the multicast flow to the corresponding user. Similarly on detection of an IGMP/MLD leave, an Admission Control message is sent by the AN to the NAS to keep the NAS aware of user departure for the flow. This message flow is illustrated in Figure 2. +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<------------------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Flow 1) | Admission-Control | |------------+---------->| (Target,add, Flow 1) | | | |-------------------------->| | | | (*) | | | Multicast-Replication-Crl | | | | (Target,add, Flow 1) | | | |<--------------------------| | Mcast Flow 1 | | |<=======================+ | | | | | ~ ~ ~ ~ | | | | | Leave(Flow 1) | Admission-Control | |------------+---------->| (Target,delete, Flow 1) | | | |-------------------------->| | | | | | | | (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Authorization/Policy Server Figure 2: Multicast Conditional Access and Admission Control 3.3. Multicast Flow Reporting Use Case 3.3.1. Goals The Multicast flow reporting use case allows the NAS to asynchronously query the AN to obtain an instantaneous status report Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 related to multicast flows currently replicated by the AN. 3.3.2. Message Flow The NAS sends a Multicast Flow Query Request message to the AN in order to query the AN about information such as which multicast flows are currently active on a given AN port or which ports are currently replicating a given multicast flow. The AN conveys the requested information to the NAS in a Multicast Flow Query Response message. This message flow is illustrated in Figure 3. +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | Multicast Flow | | | | Query Request | | | |<------------------| | | | | | | | Multicast Flow | | | | Query Response | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | | Figure 3: Multicast Flow Reporting Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 4. ANCP Messages This section defines new ANCP messages and new usage of existing ANCP messages as well as procedures associated with the use of these messages. 4.1. Provisioning Message [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines the Provisioning message that is sent by the NAS to the AN to provision information in the AN. The present document specifies that the Provisioning message MAY be used by the NAS to provision multicast-related information (e.g. Multicast Service Profiles, Bandwidth Delegation activation/ deactivation). The ANCP Provisioning message payload MAY contain the following TLVs: o Multicast-Service-Profile TLV: the Multicast-Service-Profile TLV is defined in the present document in Section 5.1. It MAY appear zero, one or multiple times. Each instance of the Multicast- Service-Profile TLV contains a (possibly empty) White List, a (possibly empty) Grey List, a (possibly empty) Black List and the Multicast Service Profile name associated with this set of three lists. o Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV: The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV is defined in the present document in Section 5.2. It MAY appear zero times or once. When present it instructs the AN on whether Bandwidth Delegation is to be activated or deactivated. [Editor's Note: A generic mechanism should be defined in ancp-proto to deal with incorrect/invalid Provisioning message. This should include an error code for the AN to indicate that it does not know a given TLV and does not support the corresponding capability, and an error code for the AN to indicate that a given TLV and its corresponding capabilities have been "negotiated out" during the Capability negotiation phase. The present document can indicate that (i) the 1st error code can be used when Provisioning message contain a multicast related TLV but the AN does not support it and (ii) the 2nd error code can be used when Bandwidth-delegation-Control TLV indicates "active" but Bandwidth Delegation is not part of the negotiated multicast capabilities]. 4.2. Port Management Message As defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol], the NAS may send line configuration information to the AN ("ANCP based Line Configuration" Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 use case) using GSMP Port Management messages modified to contain an extension block. [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines a number of TLVs that can be included in the Extension Value field inside a Port Management message (e.g. "Access-Loop-Circuit-ID", "Service- Profile-Name"). This document specifies that the Port Management message MAY also be used by the NAS to associate a "Multicast-Service-Profile" (aka. a triple of White, Grey and Black lists) to a AN port. To do so, the NAS includes a "Multicast-Service-Profile-Name" TLV (specified in Section 5.6) in the Port Management message. In addition, when bandwidth delegation is activated for this AN, the Port Management message MAY be used to provision the initial amount of bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control (hereafter referred to as the "delegated bandwidth"). To do so, the NAS MAY include in the Port Management message a "Bandwidth- Allocation" TLV (defined in Section 5.3) . [Editor's Note: the Port Management message requires the specification of an Access-Loop-Circuit-Id TLV indicating the target of the assignment. Thinking about the possibility of PON, will we be updating the definition of Access-Loop-Circuit-Id TLV to include default naming formats for PON? Of the authors, TT prefers this route, leaving Target to designate multiple targets for the same command.] 4.3. Multicast Replication Control Message This section defines a new message called the Multicast Replication Control message. The Multicast Replication Control message is sent by the NAS to the AN with one or more directives to add (join) or delete (leave) a multicast flow on a target object identified in the content of the message. When a response is needed an AN MUST use the Multicast Status message (defined in Section 4.4) to convey the outcome of the directive. The Message Type for the Multicast Replication Control message is 0x90. The sender of a Multicast Replication Control message MUST set the Result field to "0x00" meaning "Ignore". The sender MUST populate the ANCP Transaction Identifier field with a unique value, as described in section 5.4.5 of [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. The NAS MAY issue a Multicast Replication Control message to the AN to convey one or more directives to add (join) or delete (leave) a multicast flow. The NAS sends this message on its own initiative to support the NAS initiated Multicast Control use case presented in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] and summarized in Section 3.1. The NAS Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 sends this message in response to a Multicast Admission Control message (defined in Section 4.5) received from the AN to support the conditional access and admission control use case presented in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] and summarized in Section 3.2. The ANCP Multicast Replication Control message payload contains the following TLVs: o Target TLV: The Target TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. It MUST appear once and only once. It is encoded as specified in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] and identifies the AN port subject to the request for admission or release. o Command TLV: The Command TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. It MUST be present. It MAY appear multiple times. Each Command TLV contains a multicast flow directive for the target. The contents of the Command TLV for the Multicast Replication Control Message are defined in Figure 4 and subsequent text. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Command Code |R O M Flags | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr Family | Encoding Type | Multicast Flow Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast Flow Source Address (Cont'd) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr Family | Encoding Type | Multicast Flow Group Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast Flow Group Address (Cont'd) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | Padding to 32-bit boundary | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Command TLV in Multicast Replication Control Message Command Code: Command directive: 0x01 - Add; 0x02 - Delete; 0x03 - Delete All. Command Length: Length in bytes of the Command including multicast flow address, but excluding the Command Code header and flags. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Flags: 8 bit General purpose Flag field. Currently the following flags are defined: R - Resource Admitted Flag. Set to 1 in an add command to indicate that the flow resources have been reserved by admission control, 0 otherwise. Not used in delete command. O - Flow Accounting. When set in add command indicates that byte accounting for the flow is to commence. M - When set, indicates that the multicast flow is SSM; the Command MUST then specify both the source and the group address. When not set, indicates that the multicast flow is ASM; the Command MUST then specify the group address only, omitting the Source Address field. Address Family: The address family of the address with values as defined in [IANAAEA]. Encoding Type: The type of encoding used within a specific Address Family. The value `0' is reserved for this field, and represents the native encoding of the Address Family. This is consistent with the address encoding specified in [RFC4601]. Address: The address as represented by the given Address Family and Encoding Type. This is consistent with the address encoding specified in [RFC4601]. If needed, padding is done after both addresses so that the TLV is 32-bit aligned. If the AN receives a Multicast Replication Control Message containing an unrecognized Target TLV, the AN MUST return a Multicast Status Message (Section 4.4) indicating the "Unrecognised port Type - 0x04" error. Each Multicast Replication Control Message MAY contain one or more commands, each encapsulated in its own Command TLV. The sender MUST use a separate Command TLV for each distinct multicast flow. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 When successive commands (in the same or different messages) relate to the same Target and multicats flow, the state of each feature controlled or affected by flags or by optional attributes received in the Multicast Replication Control message, SHALL be as set by the last command or message referring to that target and flow and containing the controlling flag or optional attribute. As an example, successive Multicast Replication Control messages containing add commands for a given port and flow, but differing only in the accounting flag setting SHALL be interpreted to mean that the state of the accounting feature is as set in the final command received, but all other feastures are as set in the initial message. If more than one Command TLV is present in a Multicast Replication Control message, the AN MUST act on the commands in the order in which they are presented in the message. The AN SHALL assign a sequence number to each command in a given Multicast Replication Control message, starting from 0x01 for the first command. The AN MUST use the assigned sequence number in any response message when necessary to distinguish the Command TLV instance to which a given status code applies. The processing/execution of multiple commands contained in a single Multicast Control message MUST be interrupted at the first error encountered, and the remaining commands in the Multicast Replication Control message discarded. In such a case a Multicast Status message MUST be sent indicating the command number that resulted in the error along with the error code. When the order of processing of two commands does not matter, the commands MUST be transmitted in separate Multicast Replication Control messages. Each command directive is equipped with an 8-bit Flags field that allows specification of Multicast ASM or SSM modes of operation, and an indication of other features or conditions attached to this command (e.g. To enable accounting for the flow, etc). Unassigned flags are reserved for future use, and could in the future be subject of the capability negotiation. When receiving a Multicast Replication Control Message containing an unrecognized Flag set (to 1), a recipient MUST interpret it as an error, and generate an Multicast Status message indicating the error. The multicast flow subject to the command is specified by means of one or two well known Address Family designators ([IANAAEA]), the IPv4-Address-Family (0x01) and the IPv6-Address-Family (0x02). When the M flag is set the two Address-Family tuples MUST be present in the strict order specifying the multicast flow source and group respectively. When the M flag is cleared only one Address-Family is Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 allowed, specifying the multicast flow. For future extensibility, each Command TLV MAY also have additional [sub- or same level ????] TLVs appended following the command and multicast flow information (referred to as "TLVs" in the message format above). Unrecognized TLVs SHOULD be silently discarded. The figure below is an example of a Multicast Replication Control message that would result in a swap from multicast SSM flows 192.0.2.1, 233.252.0.2, to 192.0.2.2, 233.252.0.3 on the Target identified by the "Access Loop Circuit ID": Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=90 | 0x02 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0001 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = Target 0x1000 | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = Command TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x02 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Mcast Source (Ctnd) 192.0.2.1 | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mcast Flow : 233.252.0.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ | Type = Command-TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Mcast Source (Ctnd) 192.0.2.2 | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mcast Flow: 233.252.0.3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 4.4. Multicast Status Message This section defines a new message called the Multicast Status message. The general purpose of the Multicast Status message is to provide information on the success or failure to process a message previously received from the sender's peer. Depending on the particular use case, the Multicast Status message MAY be sent by Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 either the NAS or the AN. In some cases the Multicast Status message is REQUIRED, even when processing of the original message is successful. In other cases the Multicast Status message is used only to report failures. For further details see the descriptions of other multicast-related messages presented in this section. The Message Type for the Multicast Status message is 0x91. A Multicast Status message MUST use the same ANCP Transaction ID as that in the message that it is responding to. The Success or Failure status is reported in the Result field of the ANCP header as described in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. A Multicast Status Message indicating Success SHOULD simply consist only of the base ANCP header with no body, however the message MAY contain one or more TLVs that are meant to communicate any relevant information to an application. The payload of a Multicast Status Message indicating Failure MUST contain a Status-Info TLV (0x12) (as defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]) as its first TLV. This SHOULD be followed by the Target TLV (as defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]) and Port-info [???]. Other TLVs MAY be present. A Multicast Status message indicating Failure MUST be sent whenever a multicast control message cannot be fulfilled or results in an execution error. The Cmnd Nmbr parameter in the Status-Info TLV contained by the Multicast Status Message is used to indicate the sequence number of the command in the Multicast Replication Control Message that resulted in an error. In the case where the problem is with the Multicast Replication Control Message as a whole, or in the case where the problem is with a message that is not a Multicast Replication Control message, the Cmnd Nmbr parameter SHOULD be set to 0x00. The following values are defined for the Result Code field in the Status-Info TLV contained in a Multicast Status Message: 0x00 - Success 0x01 - Malformed message 0x02 - Command not supported 0x03 - Flag set but not supported 0x04 - Unrecognized Target Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0x05 - Unsupported Address Family 0x06 - Malformed flow address 0x07 - No resources 0x08 - Unknown Target 0x09 - Target down 0x0a - Configuration error (such as Port not enabled for multicast) 0x0b - Multicast flow does not exist 0x0c - Unsupported address encoding 0x0d - Additional info needed to execute command (payload MAY contain an indication of the expected info) 0x0e - Multicast flow count exceeded 0x0f - M Flag set, but no IP Source address provided 0x10 - Transaction-id out of sequence 0x11 - Invalid preferred bandwidth amount 0x12 - Bandwidth delegation not activated 0x13 - Delegated bandwidth reset required An example of a failure message for an invalid address, including the Target TLV for a 4 byte "Access Loop Circuit ID", followed by TLV padding, is as follows: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=91 | 0x4 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0001 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Status-info-TLV=0x12 | Status-TLV-Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Result Code | Cmd Number | Error Message Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Message (padded to 4) if Length > 0 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Target TLV=0x10 | Target-Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access Loop ID type | Access-Loop ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | circuit ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 4.5. Multicast Admission Control Message This section defines a new message called the Multicast Admission Control message. The Multicast Admission Control message is sent by the AN to the NAS to request admission of a multicast flow, or to notify of the removal of a multicast flow, over a given target. The NAS will use a Multicast Replication Control message (as discussed in Section 4.3) in order to convey back to the AN the outcome of the admission request. The Message Type for the Multicast Admission Control message is 0x92. The AN sending the Multicast Admission Control message MUST set the Result field to "0x00" meaning "Ignore". The AN MUST populate the ANCP Transaction Identifier field with a unique value, as described in section 5.4.5 of[I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] . The ANCP Multicast Admission Control message payload contains two TLVs: o Target TLV: The Target TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. It MUST appear once and only once in the Multicast Admission Control message. It is encoded as specified in Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] and identifies the AN port subject to the request for admission or release. o Command TLV: The Command TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. It MUST be present. If it appears more than once, only the first instance is considered meaningful in the present version of the document and the other instances are ignored . The Command TLV is encoded as specified in Section 4.3 with the following additional rules: * the R flag is set to 0 * the O flag is set to 0 * the Command field is set to "0x01 - Add" when the message conveys a Join , to "0x02 - Delete" when the message conveys a Leave and to "0x03 - Delete All" when the message conveys a Leave of all channels (on the target). * The M Flag, Multicast Source Address and Multicast Flow Address of the Command TLV identify the multicast flow subject to the request for admission or release. * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV (as defined in Section 5.7) MAY be included by the AN to convey the IP address of the sender of the join/leave message (e.g. IGMP/MLD Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in the Admission Control message. If it appears more than once, only the first instance is considered meaningful and the other instances are ignored. * a Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV (as defined in Section 5.8) MAY be included by the AN to convey the MAC address of the sender of the join/leave message (e.g. IGMP/MLD Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in the Admission Control message. If it appears more than once, only the first instance is considered meaningful and the other instances are ignored. In the future, the specification of the Admission Control message may be extended to allow transport of more than a single directive (e.g. to carry both a leave from one group and a join to another group for the same Target). It is expected that this would support a similar notion of strict sequenced processing as currently defined for handling multiple directives in the Multicast Replication Control message whereby all directives following the first directive that can not be executed are not executed either. When the strict sequenced processing of the directives is not required the directives are Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 distributed across separate messages. On receipt of an Multicast Admission Control message, the NAS: o MUST ignore the Result field o if the directive in the Multicast Admission Control message is "0x02 - Delete" or "0x03 - Delete All" and is processed correctly by the NAS, the NAS MUST NOT generate any ANCP message in response to the Multicast Admission Control message o if the directive in the Multicast Admission Control message is "0x01 - Add" and is accepted by the NAS, the NAS MUST generate a Multicast Replication Control in response to the Multicast Admission Control message. The Multicast Replication Control message: * MUST contain a Result set to 0x00 * MUST contain a Transaction ID generated by the NAS (distinct non-zero, and linearly incremented by NAS for each request per adjacency). * MUST contain the directive as accepted by the NAS o if the directive in the Multicast Admission Control message is "0x01 - Add", is processed correctly but not accepted by the NAS (i.e. it does not pass the admission control or conditional access check), the NAS MAY generate a Multicast Replication Control message in response to the Multicast Admission Control message. This optional message can be used by the AN to maintain statistics about admission control reject and, in the future, when the protocol between the subscriber and the AN allows explicit notification of join reject (e.g. [I-D.morin-mboned-igmpmld-error-feedback]). When used in this situation, the Multicast Replication Control message: * MUST contain a Result set to 0x00 * MUST contain a Transaction ID generated by the NAS (distinct non-zero, and linearly incremented by NAS for each request per adjacency). * MUST contain the directive rejected by the NAS (i.e. Target TLV and Command TLV) but with a Command Code set to "0x04 - Admission Control Reject", "0x05 - Conditional Access Reject" or "0x06 - Admission Control and Conditional Access Reject". Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 o if the Multicast Admission Control message cannot be processed correctly by the NAS (e.g. the message is malformed, the multicast flow does not exist etc.), the NAS MUST generate a Multicast Status message (defined in Section 4.4) in response to the Multicast Admission Control message. The Multicast Status message: * MUST contain a Result set to "Failure" in the ANCP header * MUST contain a Transaction ID that echoes the value of the Transaction ID received in the Multicast Admission Control message. * MUST contain a Status TLV including a Result Code indicating the reason why the Admission Control message could not be processed and encoded as specified in Section 4.4. 4.6. Bandwidth Reallocation Request Message The Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is used when the Bandwidth Delegation capability has been activated. It MAY be sent either by the NAS or by the AN to request an adjustment in the amount of delegated bandwidth. It will be sent by the NAS typically to reduce the multicast bandwidth allocated to the AN in order for the NAS to satisfy a request to add a unicast video channel. Conversely, the AN will send a Bandwidth Reallocation Request to obtain additional bandwidth to satisfy a request to add a multicast channel. In each case, the requestor has a minimum requirement for additional bandwidth, and MAY ask for additional bandwidth beyond this amount (say to handle anticipated future requests). The Message Type for the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is 0x94. The Result field in the header of the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is not used and MUST be set to Ignore (0x00). The Bandwidth Reallocation Request message MUST contain two TLVs: o the Target TLV (section 5.4.5.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]), specifying a single access line; [TT - I would prefer the Access- Loop-Circuit-Id TLV, believing it should evolve to include non-DSL identifiers, but the majority overruled me]; o the Bandwidth-Request TLV (Section 5.4), specifying the required and preferred amounts of delegated bandwidth. The bandwidth values in the Bandwidth-Request TLV are expressed in terms of total bandwidth delegated to the AN. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 23] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 The choice of "total bandwidth" rather than "incremental bandwidth" was made so that it would be easier for the AN and NAS to keep their respective views of the current amount of delegated bandwidth synchronized. Because the values are totals rather than desired increments/ decrements, the relationship between the required amount and the preferred amount will differ depending on whether the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is issued by the NAS or the AN. o If the NAS is making the request, the preferred amount MUST be less than or equal to the required amount. The required amount MUST be less than the current delegated bandwidth value. o If the AN is making the request, the preferred amount MUST be greater than or equal to the required amount. The required amount MUST be greater than the current delegated bandwidth value. If these conditions are violated and the problem is the relationship between the required amount and the receiver's view of the current delegated bandwidth, the delegated bandwidth reset procedure described in Section 4.10 MUST be performed. If the problem is the relationship between the preferred and required amounts, the peer receiving the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message MUST return a Multicast Status message where the Result field in the header indicates Failure (0x4) and the Status-Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = invalid preferred bandwidth amount (0x11); Command Number = 0x1; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); the Target TLV, copied from the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message; the Bandwidth-Request TLV, also copied from the request message. When the peer receives a valid Bandwidth Reallocation Request message, it SHOULD determine whether it can satisfy the request from its existing allocation of unused video bandwidth. If it decides that it can reallocate bandwidth to the peer, it MAY choose to return any amount between the required and the preferred amounts indicated in the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. The peer MUST return Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 a Bandwidth Transfer message Section 4.7 indicating its decision. If the request is met, the Result field of the Bandwidth Transfer message MUST be set to Success (0x3), and the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV (Section 5.3) MUST contain the new value of delegated bandwidth. This new value MUST lie between the required and preferred values, inclusive, from the request message. If the request is not met, the Result field of the Bandwidth Transfer message MUST be set to Failure (0x4) and the Bandwidth Allocation TLV MUST contain the value of the current amount of delegated bandwidth as the responder views it. To avoid deadlock due to race conditions, the following rules MUST be applied: a. If the NAS receives a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message while it has a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message of its own outstanding for the same access line, the NAS MUST provide an immediate failure response to the request from the AN. b. If the AN receives a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message while it has a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message of its own outstanding for the same access line, the AN MUST release any bandwidth it has already committed to an outstanding Join request while it is awaiting a response from the NAS. It MUST decide upon and send its response to the NAS taking the released bandwidth into account. [Editor's Note: This is an arbitrary rule which gives priority to unicast over multicast. Is that the right direction?] 4.7. Bandwidth Transfer Message The Bandwidth Transfer message is used to transfer video bandwidth from the sender to the peer for a specific access line. This message MAY be sent either from the AN or from the NAS. As described in the previous section, it is the required response to a valid Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. The Bandwidth Transfer message MAY also be used to transfer bandwidth autonomously from one peer to another. One example of this usage is to release bandwidth borrowed earlier by means of the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. When the message is used in this way, the Result field in the Bandwidth Transfer message MUST be set to Ignore (0x0). This allows the receiver to distinguish between an autonomous transfer and a response to a previous Bandwidth Reallocation Request, for purposes of validation. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 The Message Type for the Bandwidth Transfer message is 0x95. The Bandwidth Transfer message MUST contain the following TLVs: o the Target TLV, designating the access line concerned; o an instance of the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV (Section 5.3). The bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV is the new amount of delegated bandwidth. The following relationships MUST hold: o if the message is sent by the NAS, the bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV MUST be greater than or equal to the current amount of delegated bandwidth for the access line concerned; o if the message is sent by the AN, the bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV MUST be less than or equal to the current amount of delegated bandwidth for the access line concerned. In either case, equality to the current delegated bandwidth is permitted only for a failure response to a previous Bandwidth Reallocation Request. If the Bandwidth Transfer message satifies these conditions, the receiver MUST update its view of the amount of delegated bandwidth to the value given in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV. If, on the other hand, the bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Value TLV is invalid, the receiver MAY either accept the new value or MAY choose to initiate the delegated bandwidth reset procedure described in Section 4.10. 4.8. Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response Messages The Message Type for the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response messages is 0x96. The Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message MAY be sent by the NAS to retrieve the AN's view of the total amount of delegated bandwidth and the amount that is already committed. The request contains one TLV: o a Target TLV designating the access line(s) for which the information is requested. Consistently with other multicast-related messages, the Result field in the header of the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message MUST be set to Ignore (0x0). If the AN receives an invalid Delegated Bandwidth Query Request Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 message, it MUST return a Multicast Status message with the Result field in the header set to Failure (0x4). The following cases may occur: o if the Target is invalid, the Status-Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = unrecognized target (0x04); Command Number = the order of the invalid Target TLV within the request, numbering from 1 for the first one listed; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); the invalid Target TLV, copied from the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message. o if bandwidth delegation is not activated on the AN, the Status- Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = bandwidth delegation not activated (0x12); Command Number = 0x1; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text). The AN MUST respond to a valid request with a Delegated Bandwidth Query Response. The Result field in the header of this message MUST be set to Success (0x3). This message contains the following TLVs: o the Target TLV, copied from the request; o one instance of the Bandwidth-Status TLV (Section 5.5) for each access line designated in the Target TLV. The instances MUST have the same order in the response as the corresponding access lines in the Target TLV. [Editor's Note: the base protocol draft is incomplete regarding the specification of multiple access lines in the Target TLV.] Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 27] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 4.9. Multicast Flow Query Request and Response Messages This section defines two new messages called the Multicast Flow Query Request and Multicast Flow Query Response. The Multicast Flow Query Request is sent by the NAS to request information about the multicast flows that are active on the AN. The Multicast Flow Query Response is sent in response by the AN to provide the requested information to the NAS. The Message Type for the Multicast Flow Query Request and Multicast Flow Query Response messages is 0x97. The sender of a Multicast Flow Query Request and Multicast Flow Query Response message MUST set the Result field to "0x00" meaning "Ignore". The Multicast Flow Query Request message MAY be sent by the NAS to retrieve the AN's view of which multicast flows are currently active on one (or multiple) given port(s) of the AN. In that case, the Multicast Flow Query Request payload MUST contain the following TLVs: o Target TLV. It MUST appear at least once. Each occurence identifies one AN port for which information on active multicast flows is queried. It is encoded as specified in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. The Multicast Flow Query Request message MAY be sent by the NAS to retrieve the AN's view of which ports one (or multiple) given multicast flow(s) is (are) currently active on. In that case, the Multicast Flow Query Request payload MUST contain the following TLVs: o Multicast-Flow TLV. It MUST appear at least once. Each occurence identifies one multicast flow for which information is queried. It is encoded as specified in Section 5.9. The Multicast Flow Query Request message MAY be sent by the NAS to retrieve the AN's view of all the multicast flows currently active on each and every port of the AN. In that case, the Multicast Flow Query Request payload MUST NOT contain the Target TLV nor the Multicast-Flow TLV. If the AN receives an invalid Multicast Flow Query Request message, it MUST return a Multicast Status message with the Result field in the header set to Failure (0x4). The following cases may occur: o if the Target is invalid, the Status-Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = unrecognized target (0x04); Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 28] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Command Number = the order of the invalid Target TLV within the request, numbering from 1 for the first one listed; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); the invalid Target TLV, copied from the Multicast Flow Query Request message. o [Editor's note: if needed, add other error codes ???- eg if query contained both Target TLV and Multicast Flow TLV] The AN MUST respond to a valid Multicast Flow Query Request message with a Multicast Flow Query Response message. If the Multicast Flow Query Request contained one (or more) Target TLV, the AN MUST include, for each of these Target TLVs, the following set of TLVs: o Target TLV. This MUST be identical to the Target TLV in the received Multicast Flow Query Request message. o Multicast Flow TLV(s). The Multicast Flow TLV MUST appear once per Multicast Flow that is currently active on the AN port identified in the preceding Target TLV. The Target TLVs MUST appear in the response from the AN in the same order as in the query from the NAS. If the Multicast Flow Query Request contained one (or more) Multicast Flow TLV, the AN MUST include, for each of these Multicast Flow TLVs, the following set of TLVs: o Multicast Flow TLV.This MUST be identical to the Target TLV in the received Multicast Flow Query Request message. o Target TLV(s). The Target TLV MUST appear once per AN port on which the multicast flow identified in the preceding Multicast Flow TLV is active. The Multicast Flow TLVs MUST appear in the response from the AN in the same order as in the query from the NAS. If the Multicast Flow Query Request contained no Target TLV and no Multicast Flow TLV, the AN MUST include, for each and every AN port, the following set of TLVs: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 29] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 o Target TLV. This MUST identify one AN port. o Multicast Flow TLV(s). The Multicast Flow TLV MUST appear once per Multicast Flow that is currently active on the AN port identified in the preceding Target TLV. 4.10. Delegated Bandwidth Reset Procedure As described above, the receiver of a Bandwidth Reallocation Request or Bandwidth Transfer message may determine that a bandwidth value in that message bears an incorrect relationship to its view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth. The probable cause of this condition is a discrepancy between its view and its peer's view of this amount. Upon detecting this condition, the receiver MAY choose to initiate the reset procedure described in this section. If so, it MUST send a Multicast Status message to its peer with the Result field in the header set to Failure (0x4) and a Status-Info TLV containing the following values: Result Code = delegated bandwidth reset required (0x13); Command Number = 0x1; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); the Target TLV, copied from the received message an instance of the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV containing the receiver's view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth. Upon sending or receiving a Multicast Status message containing this Result Code, the NAS MUST take the following actions: 1. halt processing of admission requests for the access line indicated by the Target TLV until the reset procedure is complete; 2. issue a Delegated Bandwidth Query request message to the AN to determine the amount of bandwidth it has currently committed to multicast usage, and its view of the amount of delegated bandwidth; 3. based on the reply and possibly in consultation with the Policy Server, apply policy to determine what the amount of delegated bandwidth should be; Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 30] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 4. issue a Port Management message where the Access-Loop-Circuit-Id TLV is derived from the Target TLV in the Multicast Status message. The Port Management message MUST contain a Bandwidth- Allocation TLV giving the decided amount of delegated bandwidth. 5. update its own view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth to the decided amount. At this point the reset procedure is complete and the NAS can resume processing of admission requests for the affected access line. Upon sending or receiving a Multicast Status message containing this Result Code, the AN MUST take the following actions: 1. halt processing of admission requests for the access line indicated by the Target TLV until the reset procedure is complete; 2. wait for and respond to a Delegated Bandwidth Query request message, indicating the amount of bandwidth it has currently committed to multicast usage and its view of the amount of delegated bandwidth; 3. wait for a Port Management message giving the decided amount of delegated bandwidth for the access line concerned; 4. update its view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth to the amount received in the Port Management message. At this point the reset procedure is complete and the AN can resume processing of admission requests for the affected access line. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 31] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 5. ANCP TLVs and Sub-TLVs This section defines new ANCP TLVs and sub-TLVs or extends existing ones. 5.1. Multicast-Service-Profile TLV This document defines the new Multicast-Service-Profile TLV. The Multicast-Service-Profile TLV MAY be included in a Provisioning message as specified in Section 4.1. The Multicast-Service-Profile is illustrated in Figure 5: 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Mcast Service Profile | TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast-Service-Profile-Name Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0001 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | White-List Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0002 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Grey-List Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0003 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Black-List Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0004 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: Multicast-Servive-Profile TLV Multicast Service Profile TLV Type: TLV (0x13) : indicating that this is a Multicast Service Profile TLV Each of the four sub-TLVs begins with a 32-bit header consisting of a 16-bit sub-TLV type code followed by a 16-bit length field giving the amount of data following this sub-TLV header in octets. The type code values for the respective sub-TLVs are indicated in the figure. The content of the sub-TLV follows immediately after the sub-TLV header. The sub-TLVs are placed into the list consecutively without intervening padding. The Multicast Service Profile Name sub-TLV MUST be present, and MUST be unique over all profiles provisioned to the Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 32] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 same AN partition. At least one other sub-TLV MUST be present, but any of White List, Grey List, or Black List sub-TLV MAY be omitted if not applicable to this profile. The Multicast-Service-Profile-Name sub-TLV is an opaque sequence of octets used to refer to the profile when activating it for a given target within a Port Management message (see Section 4.2). The content of the White-List, Grey-List, and Black-List sub-TLVs following their respective headers is in each case a sequence of multicast flow fields organized by address family. IPv4 addresses are listed first, followed by IPv6 addresses. Either set of addresses MAY be omitted if not applicable, but at least one set of addresses MUST be present. Figure 6 shows the detailed layout of a white, grey, or black list, where the detailed layout of an individual multicast flow field is described below. The list length in Figure 6 is the number of octets of multicast flow field data for that address family following the list header. 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLV tag = 0x0002,3,4 | Sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Ver=0x0000 (IPv4) | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast flow fields | ...... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Ver=0x0001 (IPv6) | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast flow fields | ...... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: Organization of a White, Grey, or Black List Each multicast flow field refers either to a Single Source Multicast (SSM) channel or to an Any Source Multicast (ASM) group. The scope of the designation may be broadened to multiple channels or groups through use of prefix length values smaller than the total address length for the given address family. Multicast flow fields MUST be placed consecutively within the sub-TLV without intervening padding except to round out individual addresses to the nearest octet boundary. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 33] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 A multicast flow field consists of two single-octet prefix lengths followed by zero to two prefix values as shown in Figure 7: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group PrefLen | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source PrefLen| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Prefix (multicast) (0 to 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Prefix (unicast, SSM only) (0 to 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: Organization of a Single Multicast Flow Field The prefix length has its usual meaning. It is the number of most- significant bits specified within the corresponding prefix. The prefix length MAY vary from 0 to 32 in the IPv4 sub-list, and from 0 to 128 in the IPv6 sub-list. A match to the multicast flow specification is performed based on the prefix values only, ignoring lower-order bits in the respective addresses. A value of 0x00 for either the Group PrefLen (prefix length) or the Source PrefLen indicates that any value of the corresponding address will match (wild card). If the value 0x00 is provided for a particular prefix length, the corresponding prefix MUST be omitted from the field contents. In particular, a value of 0x00 for the Source PrefLen indicates an ASM multicast entry, and the Source Prefix will be absent. The length of a Source or Group Prefix field is equal to (PrefLen + 7)/8 octets, truncated to the nearest integer. Unused bits at the end of the prefix MUST be set to zeroes. 5.1.1. Profile Processing At the Access Node When the AN receives an IGMP/MLD Join request, it first checks whether the program limit for that subscriber has been exceeded. If so, it discards the request. Otherwise its next step is to determine whether the source and group of the request match a multicast flow specification in the white list, the grey list, or the black list according to the profile assigned to the access line. If the requested multicast flow matches multiple lists associated with the access line, then the most specific match will be considered by the AN. If the most specific match occurs in multiple lists, the Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 34] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Black list entry takes precedence over the Grey list, which takes precedence over the White list. In this context, the most specific match is defined as: o first, most specific match on the multicast flow address (i.e. on G of ) o then, most specific match on the multicast source address (i.e. on S of ) If the requested multicast flow is not part of any list, the join message SHOULD be discarded by the AN. This default behavior can easily be changed by means of a "catch-all" statement in either the White list or the Grey list. For instance, adding () in the White List would make the default behavior to accept join messages for a multicast flow that has no other match on any list. If the requested multicast flow matches a flow in the black list, the AN discards the Join request. Otherwise, if bandwidth delegation is active for the access line, the AN determines whether it has enough unused capacity out of the total video bandwidth that has been delegated to it for multicast admission control. If so, it does white or grey list processing as described below. If there is not enough unused bandwidth, it MAY issue a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. The required bandwidth amount in the Bandwidth-Request TLV MUST be large enough that if the request is granted, there will be sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the Join request. The AN MAY set the preferred amount in the Bandwidth-Request TLV to the same value as the required amount, or to some higher amount determined by configured policy. If the request fails or if the AN does not choose to issue a Bandwidth Reallocation Request (e.g., because another such request failed recently), it does no further processing of the Join request. If the bandwidth check succeeds or if bandwidth delegation is not active, then: o if the requested multicast flow matches a flow in the white list, the AN MUST autonomously start replicating multicast traffic according to the request; o if the requested flow matches a flow in the grey list, the AN MUST send a Multicast Admission Control message (Section 4.5) to the NAS with the value of Command set to Add (0x01) and await the Multicast Replication Control message (Section 4.3) which responds to it. Note that, when bandwidth delegation is active, the AN MUST NOT send the Multicast Admission Control message until it has Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 35] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 fully established that the bandwidth checks succeeds (either because the AN has enough unused capacity in the delegated bandwidth or because the AN requested and obtained the necessary increased delegated bandwidth in a Bandwidth REallocation Response from the NAS). When the Multicast ReplicationControl message arrives, the AN MUST act according to its content. The AN MAY set a timer after which it will take no further action on the Join request and will ignore the Multicast Replication Control response, if any. [Editor's Note: for grey list requests, there is a currently unfulfilled need to indicate to the NAS (or require the NAS to know) whether admission control has been done at the AN. If so, the NAS can skip the admission control step and just apply policy.] When the AN receives a Leave request for an admitted flow, it halts replication of the indicated channel to the access line concerned. In the case of a grey list flow, it also notifies the NAS using the Multicast Admission Control message with the Command TLV set to Delete (0x03). 5.2. Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV This document defines the new Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV. The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV MAY be included in a Provisioning message as specified in Section 4.1. The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Del-Control | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV Type: TLV (0x14) : indicating that this is a Bandwidth- Delegation-Control TLV Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV Length: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 36] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Combined length in bytes of the data inside sub-TLV. Excludes the sub-TLV Header. E Flag:: When set to 0, indicates that Bandwidth Delegation is to be disabled on the AN. When set to 1, indicates that Bandwidth Delegation is to be enabled on the AN. When Bandwidth Delegation is enabled, the AN MUST subject multicast channels matching the White List or the Grey List to admission control according to the Bandwidth Delegation procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework]. If Bandwidth Delegation is enabled, the NAS SHOULD provision an initial value for the amount of bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control for each line, in a Port Management (Line Configuration) message. An initial delegated amount MAY be configured directly on the AN. A delegated bandwidth value received in a Port Management message overrides any configured value. If no value is configured and no value is provisioned by the NAS, the default initial amount of delegated bandwidth is zero. This implies that in the absence of provisioning or configuration, the AN will issue a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message to the NAS asking for multicast bandwidth, the first time it receives an IGMP/MLD Join for the given line. 5.3. Bandwidth-Allocation TLV The Bandwidth-Allocation TLV is used to indicate the total amount of video bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control for a given line, in kilobits per second. The TLV has the format shown in Figure 8. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Alloc | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: The Bandwidth-Allocation TLV Bandwidth-Allocationl TLV Type: TLV (0x15) : indicating that this is a Bandwidth-Allocation TLV Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 37] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 5.4. Bandwidth-Request TLV The Bandwidth-Request TLV is used to request an adjustment of the total amount of video bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control for a given line. The "Required amount" field indicates the minimum adjustment required to meet the request. The "Preferred amount" field indicates the adjustment the requestor would prefer to have, if possible. Section 4.6 discusses the required relationships between the "Required amount", "Preferred amount", and current values of total bandwidth delegated to the AN. The Bandwidth-Request TLV has the format shown in Figure 9. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Req | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Required amount (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preferred amount (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9: The Bandwidth-Request TLV Bandwidth-Request TLV Type: TLV (0x16) : indicating that this is a Bandwidth-Request TLV 5.5. Bandwidth-Status TLV The Bandwidth-Status TLV is used in the Delegated Bandwidth Query Response to report the AN's view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth and the amount of bandwidth within that quantity that is already committed to active programs. The Bandwidth-Status TLV has the format shown in Figure 10. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Status | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Committed amount (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 10: The Bandwidth-Status TLV Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 38] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Bandwidth-Status TLV Type: TLV (0x17) : indicating that this is a Bandwidth-Status TLV The committed amount SHOULD be less than or equal to the delegated amount. One case where this may not be so is if the procedure described in Section 4.10 has been performed and the NAS returned a delegated amount lower than the current committed amount. Another case might be if bandwidth delegation was activated after multicast bandwidth had been allocated by other means. Obviously such cases are exceptional and transient in nature. 5.6. Multicast-Service-Profile-Name TLV [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines an Extension TLV that can be used in ANCP messages. It also defines a number of TLVs that can be included in the Extension TLV when present (with a Tech Type set to "DSL") in a Port Management message (e.g. "Access-Loop-Circuit-ID", "Service- Profile-Name"). This document defines an additional TLV that can appear in an Extension TLV of Tech Type "DSL" in a Port Management message: o Type (Multicast-Service-Profile-Name = 0x18): Reference to a multicast service profile on the AN, that defines a triple. Length : (up to 64 bytes) Value : ASCII string containing the multicast profile name. 5.7. Request-Source-IP sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines the Command TLV that can be used in a Multicast Replication Control message and (as defined in this document) in the Admission Control message. The Command TLV MAY include sub-TLVs immediately following the Command Info field. This document defines the new Request-Source-IP sub-TLV. The Request-Source-IP sub-TLV MAY be included in a Command TLV inside an Admission Control message. The Request-Source-IP sub-TLV is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 39] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |sub-TLV Type = Request-Source-IP | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr Family | Encoding Type | Unicast Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Request-Source-IP sub-TLV Type: sub-TLV (0x92) indicating the contents to be a Request- Source-IP sub-TLV. Request-Source-IP sub-TLV Length: Combined length in bytes of the data inside sub-TLV. Excludes the sub-TLV Header. Address Family, Encoding type and Unicast Address: Contains the IP address of the sender of the join/leave message (e.g. IGMP/MLD Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in an Admission Control message. The IP address is encoded as per [IANAAEA]. 5.8. Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV This document defines the new Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV. The Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV MAY be included in a Command TLV inside an Admission Control message. The Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |sub-TLV Type=Request-Source-MAC |Request-S-MAC sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TBD | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV Type: sub-TLV (0x93) indicating the contents to be a Request- Source-MAC sub-TLV. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 40] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Request-Source-MAC sub- TLV Length: Combined length in bytes of the data inside sub-TLV. Excludes the sub-TLV Header. TBD: Contains the IEEE MAC address of the sender of the join/ leave message (e.g. IGMP/MLD Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in an Admission Control message. The IP address is encoded as per TBD. 5.9. Multicast-Flow TLV This document defines the new Multicast-Flow TLV. The Multicast-Flow TLV MAY be included in a Multicast Flow Query Request or Response message as specified in Section 4.9. The Multicast-Flow TLV is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Multicast-Flow | TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr Family | Encoding Type | Multicast Flow Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast Flow Source Address (Ctnd) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr Family | Encoding Type | Multicast Flow Group Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast Flow Group Address (Ctnd) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | Padding to 32-bit boundary | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Multicast-Flow TLV Multicast-Flow TLV Type: TLV (0x19) : indicating that this is a Multicast-Flow TLV Multicast-Flow TLV Length: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 41] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Length in bytes of the Value field of the TLV. Excludes the TLV Header (Type and Length). Addr Family, Encoding Type, Multicast Flow Source Address, Multicast Flow Group Address and Padding are encoded as specified for the corresponding field of the Command TLV in Section 4.3. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 42] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 6. New Capabilities [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines a capability negotiation mechanism as well as a number of capabilities. This document defines the following generic Multicast Capability Type allowing negotiation of the level of subcapability within the Multicast capability: o Capability Type : Multicast = 0x03 Length (in bytes) : 1 Capability Data (1 byte): The following values are defined: + 0x00: Reserved + 0x01: "Transactional Multicast" + 0x02: "Transactional Multicast" and "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" + 0x03: "Transactional Multicast", "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" and "Multicast Admission Control with Bandwidth Delegation" + other values: Reserved Both the NAS and the AN MUST advertise the Multicast capability in their originated adjacency messages when they support it. Initially, they indicate the full set of multicast subcapabilities that they respectively support by setting the Capability Value to the value corresponding to their respective supported set of subcapabilities. Then, if a received adjacency message indicates that the originating device supports a smaller set of multicast subcapabilities that the device receiving the message, the receiving device will turn off the multicast subcapabilities that are not supported by the other device and will send an updated adjacency message with an updated Capability Value that now matches the one of the other device. This process will eventually result in both sides agreeing on the common set of supported multicast subcapabilities. For example, if the NAS supports "Transactional Multicast" and "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" while the AN only supports "Transactional Multicast", the NAS and AN will initially advertise the Multicast capability with a respective Capability Data of 0x02 and 0x01. On receipt of the adjacency message from the AN, the NAS will turn off its "Multicast Admission Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 43] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Control without Bandwidth Delegation" subcapability and will send a new adjacency message with a Multicast capability containing a Capability Data of 0x01. From there on, the NAS and AN agree to make use of (only) the "Transactional Multicast" subcapability. A NAS or AN supporting the "Transactional Multicast" subcapability MUST support the Multicast Replication message and the Multicast Status message. A NAS or AN supporting the "Transactional Multicast" and "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" subcapabilities MUST support the Multicast Admission Control message, the Multicast Replication message and the Multicast Status message. A NAS or AN supporting the "Transactional Multicast", "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" and "Multicast Admission Control with Bandwidth Delegation" capability MUST support the Multicast Admission Control message, the Multicast Replication message, the Multicast Status message, the Bandwidth Reallocation Request and Response messages, the Autonomous Bandwidth Transfer message and the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response messages. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 44] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 7. Example of Messages and Message Flows This section provides example message flows. 7.1. Multicast Conditional Access and CAC without AN Bandwidth Delegation This section describes ANCP operations when multicast flows are subject to multicast Conditional Access and Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation. 7.1.1. List/Profile Provisioning The AN provisioning is performed by NAS using a Provisioning message that contains White/Black/Grey lists and their corresponding "Multicast Service Profile Name". To indicate to the AN that it need not perform any CAC operation on those flows, the Provisioning message also conveys an indication that Bandwidth Delegation is to be deactivated. The corresponding message flow is illustrated in Figure 11. +----------+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN | | NAS | +----------+ | Gateway | +-----+ +-----+ | +---------+ | | | | | | | | |(M1) Provisioning | | | | (Mcast S Prof name, | | | | White List, | | | | Grey List, | | | | Black List, | | | | Bw Del Deactivated) | | | |<--------------------| Figure 11: Provisioning AN with White/Grey/Black Lists for Conditional Access The Provisioning message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 93 - Provisioning * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by NAS Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 45] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 o a Multicast-Service-Profile TLV containing: * a Multicast-Service-Profile-Name sub-TLV * an Empty White-List in our example (and hence no White-List sub-TLV) * a Grey-List sub-TLV containing a catch-all entry for IPv4 (in our example) * an Empty Black-List in our example (and hence no Black-List sub-TLV) The Provisioning message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=93 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0008 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Type | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0001 | sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Multicast service profile name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0003 | sub-TLV Length = 0x06 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP ver = 0x00 | List length = 0x02 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Grp PLen=0x00 | Src PLen=0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 12 Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 46] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 7.1.2. Profile Mapping As soon as the AN port comes up, the AN sends an ANCP PORT_UP message to the NAS specifying the Access Loop Circuit ID. The NAS replies with an ANCP PORT_MNGT message that, together with the other parameters, includes the Multicast Service Profile Name to be associated to that Port. The corresponding message flow is illustrated in Figure 13. +----------+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN | | NAS | +----------+ | Gateway | +-----+ +-----+ | +---------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | DSL Synch. | | | |--------------------->| | | | |(M1)PORT_UP(Port ID) | | | |-------------------->| | | | (*) | | |(M2) PORT_MNGT | | | | (Port ID, | | | |Mcast S Profile Name)| | | |<--------------------| (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 13: Associating Profile ID to AN Port 7.1.3. Successful Join/Leave Operations The message flows in Figure 14 illustrates the ANCP message flow in case of a simple join and leave for a multicast flow that matches the grey list and when the "Bandwidth Delegation" mechanism is not activated in the AN. In that case the AN queries the NAS that performs Conditional Access and Admission Control. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 47] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | Multicast | | | | Replication (*) | | | Control (M2) | | Mcast Grey Flow |<------------------| |<======================+ | | | | | ~ ~ ~ ~ | | | | | Leave(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M3) | | | |------------------>| | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation not activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 14: Successful Join/Leave Operations The Multicast Admission Control message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 48] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP Join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.2) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0001 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ The Multicast Replication Control message M2 contains: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 49] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 90 - Multicast Replication Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by NAS o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add * R= 1 (since in our example the flow resources have been admitted by NAS) * O = 0 (since in our example flow accounting is not required) * the multicast flow for which the IGMP Join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.2) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M2 is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 50] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=90 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0009 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |1 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ The Multicast Admission Control message M3 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 51] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 * a Command Code = Delete * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP leave was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.2) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M3 is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 52] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0002 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0002 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x02 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = 0xTBD (Request-S.) TLV | Request-S.-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ 7.1.4. Admission Control Reject without NAS Response The message flow in Figure 15 illustrates the ANCP message flow in case of a join that is rejected by the NAS because of admission control and without explicit response from the NAS. In that case, the multicast flow is never replicated simply by virtue of the NAS not requesting replication. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 53] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | (*) | | | | | Mcast Grey Flow | | | not replicated x | | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation not activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 15: Admission Control Reject without NAS Response The Multicast Admission Control message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.3). Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 54] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0003 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ 7.1.5. Admission Control Reject with NAS Response The message flow in Figure 16 illustrates the ANCP message flow in case of a join that is rejected by the NAS because of admission control and with explicit response from the NAS. In that case, the multicast flow is not replicated by virtue of the NAS explicitely signaling to the AN that the multicast flow is not to be replicated. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 55] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | Multicast (*) | | | Replication | | | | Control (M2) | | Mcast Grey Flow |<------------------| | not replicated x | | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation not activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 16: Admission Control Reject with NAS Response The Multicast Admission Control message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.4). Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 56] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0004 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ The Multicast Replication Control message M2 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 90 - Multicast Replication Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by NAS Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 57] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Admission Control Reject (since in our example the flow is rejected by NAS because of bandwidth admission control and not because of conditional access) * R= 0 (since in our example the flow resources have not been admitted by NAS) * O = 0 (since in our example flow accounting is not required) * the multicast flow (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.4) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M2 is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 58] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=90 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0010 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0xTBD|0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ 7.2. Example Flows For Bandwidth Delegation As noted in Section 5.1.1, the operation of bandwidth delegation is supplemental to the operation of request processing in the absence of bandwidth delegation. Thus the same flows shown in the previous section continue to hold, except that the AN does multicast call admission before doing grey and white list processing. The example flows of this section are therefore limited to the incremental operations of bandwidth delegation. They include initial provisioning, a successful request from the AN for an increase in delegated bandwidth, an autonomous transfer of the borrowed bandwidth back to the NAS, and the initiation of the bandwidth reset procedure (Section 4.10) by the NAS when it finds that the amount of delegated bandwidth passed by the AN is larger than its current view of that amount. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 59] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 7.2.1. Activation and Provisioning of Delegated Bandwidth Activation of bandwidth delegation occurs at the level of the AN as a whole and is done by including a Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV in the Provisioning message with the E-flag set to 1. The message flow is as shown in Figure 11. In place of Figure 12 we have the following content within the Provisioning message: 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=93 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0008 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Type | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0001 | sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Multicast service profile name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0003 | sub-TLV Length = 0x06 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP ver = 0x00 | List length = 0x02 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Grp PLen=0x00 | Src PLen=0x00 | Padding = 0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Band-Del-Control | TLV Length = 0x04 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved = 0x00 | Reserved = 0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 17 Once bandwidth delegation has been activated, the NAS must provision the amount of delegated bandwidth for each access line (unless it is pre-configured on the AN). This requires a Port Management message with a Bandwidth-Allocation TLV. The same Port Management message may be used to provision other information, such as the multicast service profile name applicable to the access line. The information flow is therefore similar to that in Figure 13. In the following figure, an initial allocation of 8000 kbits/s is provided. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 60] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | Msg Type = 32 |Rslt =1| Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port Session Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Event Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| Duration | Func = 8 | X-Func = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Event Flags | Flow Control Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |x|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| Msg Type = 32 | Tech Type = 5 | Block Len = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | # of TLVs = 2 | Ext Block length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = 0x01 | Access-Loop-Cct-ID length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access-Loop-Circuit-ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Bandwidth-Alloc | TLV length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount = 8000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 18: Port Management Message Allocating Delegated Bandwidth 7.2.2. Successful Request For More Delegated Bandwidth Suppose that the AN allocates all 8000 kbits/s of its delegated amount and receives a Join request requiring another 2000 kbits/s. The AN issues a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message where the required amount field is set to acquire this amount of additional bandwidth. Since the request is framed in terms of total delegated bandwidth, required amount is 10000 kbits/s. Suppose that the AN is configured with a policy that causes it to request enough for one additional channel as a preferred amount. Hence the preferred amount is set to 12000 kbits/s. The Bandwidth Reallocation Request message has the following format: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 61] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 94 |Rslt=0 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Request | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Required amount = 10000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preferred amount = 12000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 19: Example Bandwidth Reallocation Request Message In response to this request, the NAS is willing to grant the full preferred amount. (It could have granted any value between 10000 and 12000, or it could have rejected the request.) The Bandwidth Transfer message sent as a response indicates that the new delegated bandwidth amount is 12000 kbits/s, as shown in the next figure. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 62] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 95 |Rslt=3 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Alloc | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount = 12000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 20: Example Bandwidth Transfer Message (Success Response) 7.2.3. Failed Autonomous Transfer With Reset Suppose the AN decides after an interval that it should return 2000 kbits/s of the 4000 kbits/s that it acquired from the NAS in the previous transaction. It therefore issues a Bandwidth Transfer message of its own. This message differs from the message in Figure 20 in two ways. First, because this is an autonomous transfer rather than a response, the Result field in the header is set to Ignore (0x0). Secondly, the Delegated amount is reduced to 10000 kbits/s. Now suppose that somehow the NAS forgot that it passed an additional 4000 kbits/s to the AN. Thus its current view of the amount of delegated bandwidth is 8000 kbits/s. The 10000 kbits/s appearing in the Bandwidth Transfer message is higher than this, so there is clearly a disgareement between the NAS and the AN. The NAS chooses to initiate the reset procedure, perhaps because it is close to committing all of its available video bandwidth for unicast service. As the initial step in this procedure, it issues a Multicast Status message indicating that a reset of the delegated amount is required. This is shown in the following figure. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 63] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=91 | 0x4 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Status-info-TLV=TBD | Status-TLV-Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Rslt Code = xx | Cmd No = 1 | Error Message Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Message (padded to 4) if Length > 0 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Alloc | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount = 8000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Result Code field within the Status-Info TLV contains the value: delegated bandwidth reset required (0xTBD). Figure 21: Example Initiation of Delegated Bandwidth Reset The NAS stops processing video service requests for the given access line when it sends this message. Similarly, the AN stops processing multicast video service requests when it receives the message. [To think about: can service requests that release bandwidth be safely processed? Probably.] The next step is up to the NAS: it sends a Bandwidth Delegation Query Request message to the AN. The Result field in the header is set to Ignore (0x0) as usual for multicast- related messages. The Target TLV is a copy of the one received in the original Bandwidth Transfer message. The message is shown in the following figure: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 64] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 96 |Rslt=0 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 22: Example Delegated Bandwidth Query Request Message The AN returns a Delegated Bandwidth Query Response message showing that it believes that the amount of delegated bandwidth is 10000 kbits/s and it has committed 8000 kbits/s of it. The Result field in the header shows Success (0x3) to distinguish the response. [... in case we decide to make the query bidirectional ...] Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 65] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 96 |Rslt=3 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Request | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount = 10000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Committed amount = 8000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 23: Example Delegated Bandwidth Query Response Message The NAS decides to reset the delegated bandwidth amount to 8000 kbits/s. It issues a Port Management message looking exactly like the one in Figure 18. Once it sends this message, it resumes processing service requests for the access line concerned. Similarly, the AN resumes request processing after it receives the Port Management message and resets its view of the current delegated bandwidth. In the short run, this means that it will have to ask for more bandwidth if it receives another Join request. [It seems reasonable that the AN would not do so for a period of time after a reset or a response to a Bandwidth Reallocation Request that grants less than the preferred amount. Should we establish a timer?] 7.3. Example Flows For Multicast Flow Reporting 7.3.1. Per Port Multicast Flow Reporting Figure 24 illustrate a message flow in the case where the NAS queries the AN about which multicast flow is active on port 10, on port 20 and on port 11 of the AN. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 66] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | Multicast Flow | | | | Query Request | | | | (M1) | | | |<------------------| | | | | | | | Multicast Flow | | | | Query Response | | | | (M2) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | | Figure 24: Per Port Multicast Flow Reporting The Multicast Flow Query Request message (M1) is illustrated in Figure 25. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 67] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | Msg Type = 97 |Rslt=00| Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID (port10) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID (port20) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID (port11) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 25: Multicast Flow Query Request message for per-port Mulicast Flow Reporting The Multicast Flow Query Response message (M2) is illustrated in Figure 26. It indicates that there is one active multicast flow [(192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.4)] on port 10, no active multicast flow on port 20 and two active multicast flows [(192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.4) and (192.0.2.2, 233.252.2.10)] on port 11. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | Msg Type = 97 |Rslt=00| Code = 0 | Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 68] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID (port10) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=0x19 (Multicast-Flow) TLV | Multicast Flow-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID (port20) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID (port11) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=0x19 (Multicast-Flow) TLV | Multicast Flow-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type=0x19 (Multicast-Flow) TLV | Multicast Flow-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.10 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 69] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Figure 26: Multicast Flow Query Response message for per-port Mulicast Flow Reporting Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 70] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 8. Security Considerations The security considerations of ANCP are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] and in [I-D.ietf-ancp-security-threats]. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 71] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 9. IANA Considerations This document defines the following additional values within the GSMPv3 Message Type Name Space registry: +--------------------------------+--------+---------------+ | Message | Number | Source | +--------------------------------+--------+---------------+ | Multicast Replication Control | 90 | This document | | | | | | Multicast Status | 91 | This document | | | | | | Multicast Admission Control | 92 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth Reallocation Request | 94 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth Transfer | 95 | This document | | | | | | Delegated Bandwidth Query | 96 | This document | | | | | | Multicast Flow Query | 97 | This document | +--------------------------------+--------+---------------+ This document defines the following values for the ANCP Status-Info Result Code Registry : Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 72] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +----------------------------------------------+--------+-----------+ | Status | Number | Reference | +----------------------------------------------+--------+-----------+ | Command not supported | 0x02 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Flag set but not supported | 0x03 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Unsupported Address Family | 0x05 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Malformed flow address | 0x06 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Configuration error (such as Port not | 0x0a | This | | enabled for multicast) | | document | | | | | | Multicast flow does not exist | 0x0b | This | | | | document | | | | | | Unsupported address encoding | 0x0c | This | | | | document | | | | | | Additional info needed to execute command | 0x0d | This | | (payload MAY contain an indication of the | | document | | expected info) | | | | | | | | Multicast flow count exceeded | 0x0e | This | | | | document | | | | | | M Flag set, but no IP Source address | 0x0f | This | | provided | | document | | | | | | Invalid preferred bandwidth amount | 0x11 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Bandwidth delegation not activated | 0x12 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Delegated bandwidth reset required | 0x13 | This | | | | document | +----------------------------------------------+--------+-----------+ This document defines the following additional values within the ANCP TLV Type Registry: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 73] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +--------------------------------+-----------+---------------+ | TLV Name | Type Code | Reference | +--------------------------------+-----------+---------------+ | Multicast-Service-Profile | 0x13 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Delegation-Control | 0x14 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Allocation | 0x15 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Request | 0x16 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Status | 0x17 | This document | | | | | | Multicast-Service-Profile-Name | 0x18 | This document | | | | | | Multicast-Flow | 0x19 | This document | +--------------------------------+-----------+---------------+ This document defines the following values for the ANCP Command Code registry: +-------------------------------------+----------------+------------+ | Command Code Directive Name | Command Code | Reference | | | Value | | +-------------------------------------+----------------+------------+ | Add | 0x01 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Delete | 0x02 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Delete All | 0x03 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Admission Control Reject | 0x04 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Conditional Access Reject | 0x05 | This | | | | document | | | | | | Admission Control and Conditional | 0x06 | This | | Access Reject | | document | +-------------------------------------+----------------+------------+ This document defines the following additional values to the ANCP sub-TLV Type registry: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 74] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 +--------------------+-----------+---------------+ | sub-TLV Name | Type Code | Reference | +--------------------+-----------+---------------+ | Request-Source-IP | 0x92 | This document | | | | | | Request-Source-MAC | 0x93 | This document | +--------------------+-----------+---------------+ Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 75] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 10. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Wojciech Dec for providing useful input to this document, Robert Rennison for his help in shaping the definition of the Multicast-Service-Profile TLV, Shridhar Rao for his comments and suggestions and Aniruddha A for his proposal that formed the base of the Multicast Flow Reporting solution. Philippe Champagne, Sanjay Wadhwa and Stefaan De Cnodder provided substantial contributions on the solution for the NAS initiated multicast control use case. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 76] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 11. References 11.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] Ooghe, S., Voigt, N., Platnic, M., Haag, T., and S. Wadhwa, "Framework and Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10 (work in progress), May 2009. [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] Wadhwa, S., Moisand, J., Subramanian, S., Haag, T., Voigt, N., and R. Maglione, "Protocol for Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 (work in progress), March 2009. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 11.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ancp-security-threats] Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. Cnodder, "Security Threats and Security Requirements for the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)", draft-ietf-ancp-security-threats-07 (work in progress), March 2009. [I-D.morin-mboned-igmpmld-error-feedback] Morin, T. and B. Haberman, "IGMP/MLD Error Feedback", draft-morin-mboned-igmpmld-error-feedback-02 (work in progress), November 2008. [IANAAEA] "http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers", 2005. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 77] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 78] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions July 2009 Authors' Addresses Francois Le Faucheur Cisco Systems Greenside, 400 Avenue de Roumanille Sophia Antipolis 06410 France Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19 Email: flefauch@cisco.com Roberta Maglione Telecom Italia Via Reiss Romoli 274 Torino 10148 Italy Phone: Email: roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it Tom Taylor Huawei Technologies 1852 Lorraine Ave Ottawa, Ontario K1H 6Z8 Canada Phone: +1 613 680 2675 Email: tom.taylor@rogers.com Le Faucheur, et al. Expires January 4, 2010 [Page 79]