Network Working Group Danhua. Wang, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed. Expires: August 27, 2013 Velocix (Alcatel-Lucent) Xiaoyan. He Spencer. Dawkins Huawei Chen. Ge China Telecom Wei. Ni Yunfei. Zhang China Mobile February 23, 2013 Routing Request Redirection for CDN Interconnection draft-he-cdni-routing-request-redirection-04 Abstract The Request Routing Interface comprises of (1) the asynchronous advertisement of footprint and capabilities by a downstream CDN that allows a upstream CDN to decide whether to redirect particular user requests to that downstream CDN; and (2) the synchronous operation of an upstream CDN requesting whether a downstream CDN is prepared to accept a user request and of a downstream CDN responding with how to actually redirect the user request. This document describes an interface for the latter part, i.e. the CDNI request routing/ Redirection Interface. 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 August 27, 2013. Copyright Notice Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Interface function and operation overview . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Discussion on protocol type for CDNI RRRI . . . . . . . . 5 4. HTTP based RESTful interface for the Redirection Interface . . 6 4.1. Information passed in RI requests & responses . . . . . . 8 4.2. JSON encoding of RI requests & responses . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. DNS redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.1. DNS Redirection requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.2. DNS Redirection responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. HTTP Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.1. HTTP Redirection requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.2. HTTP Redirection responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5. Indicating the cacheability and scope of responses . . . . 15 4.6. Error responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.7. Loop detection & prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Outstanding considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 1. Introduction A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is a system built on an existing IP network which is used for large scale content delivery, via prefetching or dynamically caching content on its distributed surrogates (caching servers) that are typically deployed close to the end users so that a CDN can improve access to the content it caches, for example, by reducing access latency and improving the end user experience. In recent years the volume of video and multimedia content delivered over the internet is rapidly increasing. To accommodate this increase, existing CDN providers are scaling up their infrastructure and many Network Service Providers (NSPs) are deploying their own CDNs. Another emerging requirement is CDN Interconnection (CDNI). Several real world use cases are described in [RFC6770] which prove the necessity for CDN interconnection. The most frequently mentioned use case is leveraging the collective CDN footprint of interconnected standalone CDNs to achieve the goal of delivering content to additional distributed end users regardless of their location. [RFC6707] describes the problem area, where CDNs are interconnected as described in [RFC6770] based on the requirements described in [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements], and using the technology framework described in [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework]. The purpose of this document is to define the interface for synchronous redirection operation of the request routing interface, the CDNI request routing/Redirection Interface (RI), which is one of the main building blocks of the CDN interconnection architecture described in [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements]. 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]. This document reuses the terminology defined in [RFC6707]. The term "Distinguished CDN Domain" defined in [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework] is also reused in this document. The following additional terms are introduced by this document: Application Level Redirection: The act of using an application specific redirection mechanism for the request routing process of a Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 CDN. The Redirection Target (RT) is the result of the routing decision of a CDN at the time it receives a content request via an application specific protocol response. Examples of an application level redirection are HTTP and RTMP 302 redirections. DNS Redirection: The act of using DNS name resolution for the request routing process of a CDN. In DNS Redirection, the DNS name server of the CDN makes the routing decision based on a local policy and selects one or more Redirection Targets (RTs) and redirects the user agent to the RT(s) by returning the details of the RT(s) in response to the DNS query request from the user agent's DNS resolver. HTTP Redirection: The act of using an HTTP redirection response for the request routing process of a CDN. The Redirection Target (RT) is the result of the routing decision of a CDN at the time it receives a content request via HTTP. Redirection Target (RT): A Redirection Target is the endpoint to which the user agent is redirected. In CDNI, a RT may point to a number of different components, some examples include a surrogate in the same CDN as the request router, a request router in a downstream CDN or a surrogate in a downstream CDN, etc. 3. Interface function and operation overview [[Editor's note: How an upstream CDN decides which downstream CDN(s) to query is a local policy within the upstream CDN and is outside the scope of this document.]] [[Editor's note: Need to factor token authorisation into a future draft when that work is more stable/mature within the WG.]] The CDNI request routing/Redirection Interface (RI) is one of the main building blocks required in order to interconnect CDNs. The main function of the Redirection Interface is to allow the Request Routing systems in interconnected CDNs to communicate to facilitate the redirection of User Agent requests between interconnected CDNs. The detailed requirements for the Redirection Interface and their relative priorities are described in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements]. The Redirection Interface operates between a pair of interconnected CDNs. To enable communication over the Redirection Interface, the two interconnected CDNs need to know the end point (URI) in the other CDN to query. For example, an Upstream CDN needs to know the URI (end point) in a Downstream CDN to send its CDNI request routing Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 queries to. The Redirection Interface URI may be statically pre-configured, dynamically discovered via the CDNI control interface, or discovered via other means. However, such discovery mechanisms are not specified in this document, as they are considered out of the scope of the Redirection Interface specification. CDNI solutions must support both of the request routing mechanisms illustrated in section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework], namely Iterative Request Routing and Recursive Request Routing. However, the Iterative Request Routing method does not invoke any interaction over the Redirection Interface between interconnected CDNs. Therefore, the Redirection Interface is only relevant in the case of Recursive Request Routing and so this document will not discuss Iterative Request Routing further. In the case of Recursive Request Routing, an Upstream CDN forwards a CDNI request routing redirection request from a user agent to a Downstream CDN for the Downstream CDN to select a Redirection Target. The initial Upstream CDN->User Agent redirection protocols addressed in this draft are: DNS redirection and HTTP redirection. Other types of application level redirection will not be discussed further in this draft. However the Redirection Interface is designed to be extensible and could be extended to support additional application level redirection protocols. Also, according to the CDNi generic and request routing interface requirements, the CDNI solution shall support mechanisms to prevent and detect RI request loops. To meet such requirements, this document defines a loop prevention and detection mechanism as part of the Redirection Interface. 3.1. Discussion on protocol type for CDNI RRRI The request routing process between an Upstream CDN and a Downstream CDN has several variants depending on the following factors: o Which request routing mechanism is being used by an Upstream CDN to redirect the User Agent: DNS Redirection or HTTP Redirection. o Which request routing mechanism is being used by a Downstream CDN to redirect the User Agent: DNS Redirection or HTTP Redirection. The possible combinations are shown in Table 1. Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 +------+----------+------------------+------------------------------+ | Case | uCDN | dCDN Response | Notes | | | Received | | | | | Request | | | +------+----------+------------------+------------------------------+ | 1 | DNS | DNS with IP | dCDN uses DNS redirection | | | | address/hostname | (via the RI interface) to | | | | of RT(s) | redirect the UA to one or | | | | | more RTs (Surroagtes or | | | | | Request Routers). | +------+----------+------------------+------------------------------+ | 2 | DNS | DNS with IP | dCDN uses DNS redirection | | | | address/hostname | (via the RI interface) to | | | | of itself or | redirect the UA to a RR | | | | another RR as | (either in the dCDN or in | | | | the RT(s) | another CDN), which then | | | | | performs a HTTP redirection | | | | | to redirect the UA to one or | | | | | more RTs. | +------+----------+------------------+------------------------------+ | 3 | HTTP | HTTP 302 | dCDN uses HTTP redirection | | | | redirection | mode to redirect the UA to a | | | | | RT. | +------+----------+------------------+------------------------------+ Recursive Routing Cases 4. HTTP based RESTful interface for the Redirection Interface This document defines a simple HTTP based RESTful interface for the Redirection Interface, where the attributes of User Agent's requests are encapsulated along with any other data that can aid the downstream CDN in processing the requests. The RI response encapsulates the attributes of the RT(s) that the upstream CDN should return to the User Agent (if it decides to utilize the Downstream CDN for delivery) along with the policy for how the response can be reused. The same RESTful interface is used for both DNS and HTTP redirection of User Agent's requests, although the contents of the RI requests/ responses contain data specific to either DNS or HTTP redirection. This approach has been chosen because it enables CDN operators to only have to deploy a single (RESTful) interface for the RI between their CDNs, regardless of the User Agent redirection method. In this way, from an operational point of view there is only one interface to monitor, manage, develop troubleshooting tools for, etc. Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 In addition, having a single RI where the attributes of the User Agent's DNS or HTTP request are encapsulated along with the other data required for the downstream CDN to make a request routing decision, avoids having to try and encapsulate or proxy DNS/HTTP/ RTMP/etc requests and find ways to somehow embed the additional CDNI request routing/Redirection Interface properties/data within those End User DNS/HTTP/RTMP/etc requests. Finally, the RI is easily extendable to support other User Agent request redirection methods (e.g. RTMP 302 redirection). The general call flow between Request Routers in a pair of interconnected CDNs is as follows: User Agent CDN B RR CDN A RR |UA Request (DNS or HTTP) | | |-------------------------------------------------->| | | | | |HTTP POST to CDN B's RI | | |URI encapsulating UA | (1) | |request attributes | | |<------------------------| | | | | |HTTP Response with body | | |containing attributes of | (2) | |protocol specific | | |response to return to UA | | |------------------------>| | | | | Protocol specific response (redirection)| (3) |<--------------------------------------------------| | | | 1. The User Agent sends its request, either DNS request or HTTP request, to CDN A. The Request Routing System of CDN A processes the request and, through local policy, it recognizes that the request is best served by another CDN, specifically CDN B (or that CDN B is one of a number of candidate dCDNs it could use). 2. The Request Routing System of CDN A sends an HTTP POST to CDN B's RI URI containing the attributes of the User Agent's request. 3. The Request Routing System of CDN B processes the request and assuming the request is well formed, etc. responds with an HTTP "200" response with a message body containing the RT(s) to return to the User Agent as well as parameters that indicate the properties of the response (cacheability and scope). Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 4. The Request Routing System of CDN A sends a protocol specific response (containing the returned attributes) to the User Agent, so that the User Agent's request will be redirected to the RT(s) returned by CDN B. 4.1. Information passed in RI requests & responses The information passed in RI requests splits into two basic categories: 1. The attributes of the User Agent's request to the upstream CDN. 2. Properties/parameters that the uCDN can use to control the dCDN's response or that can help the dCDN make its decision. To assist the routing decision of a Downstream CDN, the Upstream CDN shall convey as much information as possible to the Downstream CDN, e.g. URI of the requested content, the client's location information. In order for the Downstream CDN to determine whether it is capable of delivering any requested content, it requires CDNI metadata related to the content the User Agent is requesting. That metadata will describe the content and any policies associated with it. It is expected that the RI request contains sufficient information for the Request Router in the Downstream CDN to be able to retrieve the require CDNI Metadata via the CDNI Metadata interface. The information passed in RI responses splits into two basic categories: 1. The attributes of the RT to return to the User Agent in the DNS response or HTTP response. 2. Parameters/policies that indicate the properties of the response, such as, whether it is cacheable, the scope of the response, etc. In addition to details of how to redirect the User Agent, the Downstream CDN may wish to return additional policy to the Upstream CDN to help the Upstream CDN with future RI requests. For example the Downstream CDN may wish to return a policy that expresses "this response can be reused without requiring a RI request for 60 seconds provided the User Agent's IP address is in the range 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255". These additional policies split into two basic categories: Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 o An indication of the cacheability of the response carried in the HTTP response headers (to reduce the number of subsequent RI requests the uCDN needs to make). o The scope of the response (if it is cacheable) carried within the body of the HTTP response. For example whether the response applies to a wider range of IP addresses than what was included in the RI request. The cacheability of the response is indicated using the standard HTTP Cache-Control mechanisms. 4.2. JSON encoding of RI requests & responses The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object containing a dictionary of keys. Keys MUST always be encoded in lowercase. Unknown keys MUST be ignored but the response MUST NOT be considered invalid unless the syntax of the request is invalid. The following keys are defined: +----------+------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Key | Request/Response | Description | +----------+------------------+-------------------------------------+ | dns | Both | The attributes of the UA's DNS | | | | request or the attributes of the | | | | RT(s) to return in a DNS response. | | http | Both | The attributes of the UA's HTTP | | | | request or the attributes of the RT | | | | to return in a HTTP response. | | scope | Response | The scope of the response (if it is | | | | cacheable). For example whether | | | | the response applies to a wider | | | | range of IP addresses than what was | | | | included in the RI request. | | error | Response | Additional details if the response | | | | is an error response. | Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 | cdn-path | Request | A List of Strings. Contains the | | | | CDN Provider IDs of previous CDNs | | | | this RI request has passed through. | | | | When cascading a RI request the | | | | transit CDN appends its own CDN | | | | Provider ID to the list in cdn-path | | | | so that downstream CDNs can detect | | | | loops in the RI request chain. | | | | Transit CDNs should check the | | | | cdn-path and not cascade the RI | | | | request to downstream CDNs that are | | | | already listed in cdn-path. | | max-hops | Request | Integer specifying the Maximum | | | | Number of hops (CDN Provider IDs) | | | | this request is allowed to be | | | | propagated along. This allows the | | | | uCDN to crudely constrain the | | | | latency of the request routing | | | | chain. | +----------+------------------+-------------------------------------+ Top-Level keys in RI requests/responses A single request or response MUST contain only one of the dns or http keys. Requests MUST contain a cdn-path key. [[Editor's note: Is this too inflexible? Are they use cases for including both dns & http keys in a RI request? Maybe a use case is responses is if the dCDN wants to indicate it is prepared to have a DNS redirection directly to it or a HTTP redirection from the uCDN RR to the dCDN and wants to indicate both options in a single response?]] [[Editor's note: Is the cdn-path useful on responses as well?]] [[Editor's note: Need some text/section specifying the Media Types for RI requests/responses]] [[Editor's note: Need some text on minimum attributes to be able to (at least parse) - e.g. A/AAAA/CNAME, etc)]] [[Editor's note: Need section detailing format/etc for scope and error keys]] Note: All implementations MUST support IPv4 addresses encoded as specified by the 'IPv4address' rule in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986] and MUST support all IPv6 address formats specified in [RFC4291]. Server implementations SHOULD use IPv6 address formats specified in Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 [RFC5952]. 4.3. DNS redirection The following sections provide more detailed descriptions of the information that should be passed in RI requests and responses for DNS redirection. 4.3.1. DNS Redirection requests For DNS based redirection the uCDN needs to pass the following information to the dCDN in the RI request: o The IP address of the DNS resolver that made the DNS request to the Upstream CDN. o The type of DNS query made (A, AAAA, RCODEs, etc.). o The class of DNS query made (usually IN). [[Editor's Note: Do we need to include class or can we always assume it is IN?]] o The fully qualified domain name for which DNS redirection is being requested. o The IP address of the User Agent (if known to the Upstream CDN, e.g. through draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet). The information above is encoded as a set of key:value pairs within the dns dictionary as follows: +-------------+--------+-----------+--------------------------------+ | Key | Value | Mandatory | Description | +-------------+--------+-----------+--------------------------------+ | resolver-ip | String | Yes | The IP address of the UA's DNS | | | | | resolver. | | qtype | String | Yes | The type of DNS query made by | | | | | the UA's DNS resolvers in | | | | | uppercase (A, AAAA, etc.). | | qclass | String | Yes | The class of DNS query made in | | | | | uppercase (IN, etc.). | | qname | String | Yes | The fully qualified domain | | | | | name being queried. | | c-subnet | String | No | The IP address of the UA in | | | | | CIDR format. | +-------------+--------+-----------+--------------------------------+ An example RI request (uCDN->dCDN) for DNS based redirection: Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 POST /dcdn/ri HTTP/1.1 Host: rr1.dcdn.example.net Accept: application/vnd.cdni.ri.response+json { "dns" : { "resolver-ip" : "192.0.2.1", "c-subnet" : "198.51.100.0/24", "qtype" : "A", "qclass" : "IN", "qname" : "www.example.com" }, "cdn-path": ["AS65551:0"], "max-hops": 3 } 4.3.2. DNS Redirection responses For DNS based redirection the dCDN needs to return one of the following to the uCDN in the RI response: o The IP address of (or a CNAME to) the RT (if the dCDN is performing DNS based redirection); or o The IP address of (or a CNAME to) a RT which is a Request Router (if the dCDN is performing HTTP based redirection). The information above is encoded as a set of key:value pairs within the dns dictionary as follows: +-------+-----------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | Key | Value | Mandatory | Description | +-------+-----------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ | rcode | Integer | Yes | DNS response code. | | name | String | Yes | The fully qualified domain name | | | | | the response relates to. | | a | List of | No | Set of IPv4 Addresses of RT(s). | | | String | | | | aaaa | List of | No | Set of IPv6 Addresses of RT(s). | | | String | | | | cname | List of | No | Set of fully qualified domain | | | String | | names of RT(s). | | ttl | Integer | No | TTL of DNS response. Default is | | | | | 0. | +-------+-----------+-----------+-----------------------------------+ Response must contain at least one of a, aaaa, cname. Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 An example of a successful RI response (dCDN->uCDN) for DNS based redirection: [[Editor's note: Currently shows both A/AAAA & CNAME in single response, need to split to show the different use cases]] HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:41:38 GMT Content-Type: application/vnd.cdni.ri.response+json { "dns" : { "rcode" : 0, "name" : "www.example.com", "a" : ["192.0.2.200", "192.0.2.201"], "aaaa" : ["2001:DB8::C8", "2001:DB8::C9"], "cname" : ["rr1.dcdn.example", "rr2.dcdn.example"], "ttl" : 60 } } 4.4. HTTP Redirection The following sections provide more detailed descriptions of the information that should be passed in RI requests and responses for HTTP redirection. 4.4.1. HTTP Redirection requests For HTTP based redirection the uCDN needs to pass the following information to the dCDN in the RI request: o The IP address of the User Agent. o The URL requested by the User Agent. [[Editor's note: What other attributes of the request should we include? METHOD? Version? other headers?]] The information above is encoded as a set of key:value pairs within the http dictionary as follows: +--------+--------+-----------+-------------------------------------+ | Key | Value | Mandatory | Description | +--------+--------+-----------+-------------------------------------+ | c-ip | String | Yes | The IP address of the UA/client | Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 | cs-uri | String | Yes | The URI requested by the UA/client. | +--------+--------+-----------+-------------------------------------+ An example RI request (uCDN->dCDN) for HTTP based redirection: POST/dcdn/rrri HTTP/1.1 Host: rr1.dcdn.example.net Accept: application/vnd.cdni.rrri.response+json { "http": { "c-ip": "198.51.100.1", "cs-uri": "http://www.example.com" }, "cdn-path": ["AS65551:0"], "max-hops": 3 } 4.4.2. HTTP Redirection responses For HTTP based redirection the dCDN needs to return one of the following to the uCDN in the RI response: o A URL pointing to the selected RT (if the dCDN is redirecting the User Agent directly to a surrogate); or o A URL pointing to a RT which is a Request Router (if the dCDN is not redirecting the User Agent directly to a surrogate). The information above is encoded as a set of key:value pairs within the http dictionary as follows: +------------------+---------+-----------+--------------------------+ | Key | Value | Mandatory | Description | +------------------+---------+-----------+--------------------------+ | sc-status | Integer | Yes | The status code of the | | | | | HTTP response to return | | | | | to the UA (usually 302). | | cs-uri | String | Yes | The URI requested by the | | | | | UA/client. | | sc-location | String | Yes | The contents of the | | | | | Location header to | | | | | return to the UA (i.e. a | | | | | URI pointing to the | | | | | RT(s)). | Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 | sc-cache-control | String | No | The contents of the | | | | | Cache-Control header to | | | | | return to the UA. | +------------------+---------+-----------+--------------------------+ An example of a successful RI response (dCDN->uCDN) for HTTP based redirection: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:41:38 GMT Content-Type: application/vnd.cdni.ri.response+json { "http": { "sc-status": 302, "cs-uri": "http://www.example.com" "sc-location": "http://sur1.dcdn.example/ucdn/example.com", "sc-cache-control" : "public, max-age=30" } } 4.5. Indicating the cacheability and scope of responses [[Editor's note: Need to expand text a little.]] Cacheability is via the standard HTTP Cache-Control mechanisms. Scope is encoded as a set of key:value pairs within the scope dictionary as follows: +---------+--------+-----------+------------------------------------+ | Key | Value | Mandatory | Description | +---------+--------+-----------+------------------------------------+ | iprange | List | No | A List of IP subnets in CIDR | | | of | | notation that this RI response can | | | String | | be reused for, provided the RI | | | | | response is still considered | | | | | fresh. | +---------+--------+-----------+------------------------------------+ [[Editor's note: Maybe add some kind of way to indicate a wider scope on the UA URI, which could be useful in the case where a dCDN wishes to HTTP 302 redirect to its RR first in order to avoid load on the RI interface.]] Example of DNS redirection response from Section 4.3.2 that is cacheable by the uCDN for 60 seconds and can be returned to any User Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 Agent with an IPv4 address in 198.51.100.0/16. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:41:38 GMT Content-Type: application/vnd.cdni.ri.response+json Cache-Control: public, max-age=60 { "dns" : { "rcode" : 0, "name" : "www.example.com", "a" : ["192.0.2.200", "192.0.2.201"], "aaaa" : ["2001:DB8::C8", "2001:DB8::C9"], "cname" : ["rr1.dcdn.example", "rr2.dcdn.example"], "ttl" : 60 } "scope" : { "iprange" : ["198.51.100.0/16"] } } Example of HTTP redirection response from Section 4.4.2 that is cacheable by the uCDN for 60 seconds and can be returned to any User Agent with an IPv4 address in 198.51.100.0/16. HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:41:38 GMT Content-Type: application/vnd.cdni.ri.response+json Cache-Control: public, max-age=60 { "http": { "sc-status": 302, "cs-uri": "http://www.example.com" "sc-location": "http://sur1.dcdn.example/ucdn/example.com", "sc-cache-control" : "public, max-age=30" } "scope" : { "iprange" : ["198.51.100.0/16"] } } Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 4.6. Error responses [[Editor's note: Probably need more explanation & examples of errors that shouldn't be propagated to the User Agent?]] RI error response examples. RI error response (dCDN->uCDN) for DNS based User Agent requests: HTTP/1.1 500 Server Error Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:41:38 GMT Content-Type: application/vnd.cdni.rrri.error+json Cache-Control: private, no-cache { "dns" : { "rcode" : 4 # DNS response code (e.g. # doesn't support AAAA) "name" : "www.example.com", # domain name response # relates to }, "error" : { "code" : TBD, # Give each error type its # own numeric code "description" : # Give more informative "IPv6/AAAA queries are not supported" # description than just } # protocol specific error # codes } RI error response (dCDN->uCDN) for HTTP based User Agent requests: Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 HTTP/1.1 500 Server Error Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:41:38 GMT Content-Type: application/vnd.cdni.rrri.error+json Cache-Control: private, no-cache { "http": { "rcode": 400, # HTTP response code "url": "http://www.example.com", # URL response # relates to } "error" : { "code" : TBD, # Give each error type its # own numeric code "description" : TBD # Give more informative # description than just } # protocol specific error # codes } 4.7. Loop detection & prevention In order to prevent and detect RI request loops, each CDN MUST insert its CDN Provider ID into the cdn-path key of every RI request it originates or cascades. When receiving RI requests a dCDN should check the cdn-path and reject any RI requests which already contain the downstream CDN's Provider ID in the cdn-path. Transit CDNs should check the cdn-path and not cascade the RI request to downstream CDNs that are already listed in cdn-path. CDNs MUST NOT propagate to any downstream CDNs if the number of CDN Provider IDs in cdn-path (including the CDN's own Provider ID) is equal to or greater than max-hops. The CDN Provider ID uniquely identifies each CDN provider during the course of request routing redirection. It consists of the the characters AS followed by the CDN Provider's AS number, then a colon (':') and an additional qualifier that is used to guarantee uniqueness in case a particular AS has multiple independent CDNs deployed. For example "AS65551:0". If a downstream CDN receives a RI request whose cdn-path already contains that downstream CDN's Provider ID the downstream CDN MUST send a RI response with an error code of [[TBD]]. 5. Security Considerations [[Editor's note: Not sure if this current text is really security Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 considerations or whether it is better placed elsewhere in the document.]] In HTTP based Recursive Request Routing, the end user's web browsers will not send cookies if the content request is redirected to a URL in a different domain rather than the original CP's domain, e.g. the Downstream CDN's domain. If the browser is expected to send any cookies associated with the original CP's domain, this will cause problem that the CP's policy is not enforced by the CDN. The section 5.2 of draft [I-D.peterson-cdni-strawman] has discussed a similar question and given a solution. 6. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Ray Brandenburg, Taesang Choi and Francois le Faucheur for their valuable comments and input to this document. 8. Outstanding considerations Along with the various Editor's notes in the document, the following items still need to be addressed: o What extra properties/fields are required to cover all DNS/HTTP redirection cases? o Do we need Queries other than A/AAAA & response other than A/AAAA/ CNAME? o Response scopes other than IP address? (AS? URL match?) o Better Security Considerations section. o Description/specification for how to extend the protocol with additional optimonal parameters/attributes. 9. References Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 9.2. Informative References [RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem Statement", RFC 6707, September 2012. [RFC6770] Bertrand, G., Stephan, E., Burbridge, T., Eardley, P., Ma, K., and G. Watson, "Use Cases for Content Delivery Network Interconnection", RFC 6770, November 2012. [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework] Peterson, L. and B. Davie, "Framework for CDN Interconnection", draft-ietf-cdni-framework-03 (work in progress), February 2013. [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements] Leung, K. and Y. Lee, "Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements", draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-04 (work in progress), December 2012. [I-D.peterson-cdni-strawman] Peterson, L. and J. Hartman, "A Simple Approach to CDN Interconnection", draft-peterson-cdni-strawman-01 (work in progress), May 2011. Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 Authors' Addresses Wang Danhua (editor) Huawei Technologies No. 101 Software Avenue Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210001 P.R.China Phone: +86-25-56624734 Fax: +86-25-56624702 Email: wangdanhua@huawei.com Ben Niven-Jenkins (editor) Velocix (Alcatel-Lucent) 3 Ely Road Milton, Cambridge CB24 6DD UK Email: ben@velocix.com He Xiaoyan Huawei B2, Huawei Industrial Base 518129 P.R.China Email: hexiaoyan@huawei.com Spencer Dawkins Huawei Email: spencer.dawkins@wondermaster.com Ge Chen China Telecom 109 West Zhongshan Ave,Tianhe District Guangzhou P.R. China Email: cheng@gsta.com Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Routing Request Redirection February 2013 Ni Wei China Mobile No.32 Xuanwumen West Street Xicheng District Beijing 100053 P.R. China Email: niwei@chinamobile.com Zhang Yunfei China Mobile Email: zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Wang, et al. Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 22]