Internet DRAFT - draft-contreras-opsawg-collaborative-interface
draft-contreras-opsawg-collaborative-interface
Operations and Management Area Working Group LM. Contreras
Internet-Draft O. Gonzalez
Intended status: Experimental Telefonica
Expires: January 7, 2016 July 6, 2015
Collaborative Interface between Network Operators and CDNs
draft-contreras-opsawg-collaborative-interface-00
Abstract
The absence of appropriate mechanisms for information exchange
between Network Operators and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) and
content providers leads to avoidable inefficiency for the delivery of
contents to end users in situations like congestion, selection of
best distributed delivery end point, etc.
This document describes the need of an information exchange interface
between Network Operators and CDNs to collaborate in order to provide
the best service quality to the end users.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Collaborative Interface July 2015
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Collaborative interface scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. QoS / QoE information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Topology notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Congestion notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.4. Optimization capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
The lack of mechanisms for exchange of information between Network
Operators and CDNs prevents from having optimal delivery of content
to end users.
For instance, CDNs typically select the delivery end point for a
given user based on the internal status (e.g., workload) of the end
points and possibly some inferred geographical information from the
IP address of the end user. In contrast to this, in case of having a
mechanism for inform the CDN about the truly specific location of the
end user or the status of the network links connecting the delivery
point with the end user in terms of congestion, the selection of the
end point, the content codification, etc, could be improved to the
extent of taking optimal decisions according to the real status of
the network.
Then it seems valuable to define an interface that can assist on the
decisions for both the Network Operators and the CDNs in order to
serve the contents in the best possible way to the end user.
This document propose the specification of such an information
exchange interface between Network Operators and CDNs.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Collaborative Interface July 2015
3. Collaborative interface scope
The intended interface should enable an appropriate network
management to handle constantly increasing traffic growth. It is
expected that such kind of interface could create both technical and
cost efficiencies for both CDNs and network operators.
The capabilities enabled by this collaborative interface are
worthwhile for both Network Operators and CDNs.
o For Network Operators: ability to access content metadata in order
to optimize quality in network, offer better user experience, etc.
o For CDNs: ability to access users' data in order to optimize end
point selection, content format, etc.
To reach that goal, the following sections describe in detail
information that SHOULD be supported by the collaborative interface.
3.1. QoS / QoE information
The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to
facilitate the provision of differentiated QoS / QoE for a given
content or end user. The expected benefits are the improvements on
performance and QoE perceived by the end user.
3.2. Topology notification
The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to provide
topological information of the network to the CDN and topological
information of the caches to the Network Operator. The expected
benefits are the enabling of traffic engineering in the network, and
the potential implementation of network planning in real time, e.g.,
in case of a massive event.
3.3. Congestion notification
The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to provide
link occupancy information that could impact on the delivery of
contents. The expected benefits are the assistance on content
delivery decisions with network-aware information, and the
improvement on performance and QoE perceived by the end user.
3.4. Optimization capabilities
The motivation for exchanging this type of information is to enable
optimization mechanisms for traffic delivery. The expected benefits
Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Collaborative Interface July 2015
are the provision of content adaptation fitting to the available
network resources.
4. Security Considerations
To be completed
5. IANA Considerations
To be completed
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n
Sur-3 building, 3rd floor
Madrid 28050
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
URI: http://people.tid.es/LuisM.Contreras/
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n
Sur-3 building, 3rd floor
Madrid 28050
Spain
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Contreras & Gonzalez Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4]
