Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs
draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs
PPSP N. Zong, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational Y. Zhang
Expires: April 10, 2012 China Mobile Communication
Corporation
V. Pascual
Acme Packet
C. Williams
Consultant
L. Xiao
Nokia Siemens Networks
October 08, 2011
P2P Streaming Protocol (PPSP) Requirements
draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-05
Abstract
The objective of the PPSP work is to standardize the key signaling
protocols that apply to tracker and peers in a Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
streaming system. These protocols are called PPSP. This document
enumerates the requirements for the PPSP, which should be considered
when designing PPSP.
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 April 10, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
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.
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.
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of PPSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. PPSP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. PPSP Tracker Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. PPSP Peer Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
1. Introduction
Peer to Peer (P2P) computing has been successfully used in many
fields, from one-to-one communication like Voice over IP (VoIP) and
Instance Messaging (IM), to one-to-many communication like streaming,
file sharing and gaming. In the streaming area, the popularity of
P2P real-time and video on demand (VoD) streaming technology has been
demonstrated by PPLive [PPLive], PPStream [PPStream], UUSee [UUSee],
Pando [Pando] etc. Take PPLive for example, it has over 5 million
online users at the same time for real-time streaming. P2P streaming
applications account for more and more Internet traffic. According
to statistics in a major Chinese Internet Service Provider (ISP), the
traffic generated by P2P streaming applications exceeded 50% of the
total backbone traffic during peak time in 2008
[I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement].
Given the increasing integration of P2P streaming into the global
content delivery infrastructure, the lack of an open, standard P2P
streaming protocol has become a major missing component in the
Internet protocol stack. Multiple similar but proprietary P2P
streaming protocols result in repetitious development efforts and
lock-in effects. More importantly, it leads to substantial
difficulties when integrating P2P streaming as a component of a
global content delivery infrastructure. For example, proprietary P2P
streaming protocols do not integrate well with infrastructure devices
such as caches and other edge devices
[I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement].
The objective of the PPSP work is to standardize the key signaling
protocols that apply to tracker and peers in a P2P streaming system.
These protocols are called PPSP. PPSP will serve as an enabling
technology, building on the development experiences of existing P2P
streaming systems. Its design will allow it to integrate with IETF
efforts on distributed resource location, traffic localization, and
streaming control mechanisms. It allows effective integration with
edge infrastructures such as cache and mobile edge equipment
[I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement].
This document enumerates the requirements for the PPSP, which should
be considered when designing PPSP.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
This document uses the following PPSP-related terms, which are
defined in [I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement], including:
Chunk, Live streaming, Peer/PPSP peer, PPSP, Swarm, Tracker/PPSP
tracker, Video-on-demand (VoD).
Furthermore, the following additional terms will be used:
Peer list: A list of peers which are in a same swarm maintained by
the tracker. A peer can fetch the peer list of a swarm from either
tracker or other peers to know which peers have the required
streaming content.
Peer ID: An identifier of a peer such that other peers or tracker can
refer the ID for the peer.
Swarm ID: An identifier of a swarm containing a group of peers
sharing a same streaming content.
Chunk ID: An identifier of a chunk in a streaming content.
3. Overview of PPSP
As described in [I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement], the following
components are considered in the scope of PPSP:
1) Tracker communication. Tracker communication is a component that
enables each peer to get peer list from the tracker and/or provide
content availability to the tracker.
2) Peer communication. Peer communication is a component that
enables each peer to exchange content availability and request
content from other peers.
3) Report. Report is a component that enables peers to report
streaming status to the tracker. The information may include swarm
IDs to show swarms that the peer is taking active part in, chunk list
for each swarm to show the current content availability in the peer,
inbound/outbound traffic capacity, amount of neighbor peers, peer
health degree, total amount of bytes uploaded/downloaded to neighbour
peers, and other streaming parameters.
Therefore, PPSP includes the PPSP tracker protocol - a signaling
protocol between PPSP trackers and PPSP peers, and the PPSP peer
protocol - a signaling protocol among PPSP peers.
PPSP tracker protocol will define:
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
1) Standard format/encoding of information between PPSP peers and
PPSP tracker. Some of this exchanged information may be explicitly
marked as optional. Exchanged information may include peer list,
swarm ID, chunk information, content availability, streaming status
including online time, link status, node capability and other
streaming parameters.
2) Standard messages between PPSP peers and PPSP trackers defining
how PPSP peers report streaming status and request to PPSP trackers,
as well as how PPSP trackers reply to the requests.
PPSP peer protocol will define:
1) Standard format/encoding of information among PPSP peers, such as
chunk description.
2) Standard messages among PPSP peers defining how PPSP peers
advertise chunk availability to each other, as well as the signaling
for requesting the chunks among PPSP peers.
This document itemizes requirements for the following aspects of
PPSP:
1) Basic requirements to PPSP protocols (peer and tracker protocols),
entities (peer and tracker), streaming content, and QoS issues.
2) General requirements to the tracker protocol.
3) General requirements to the peer protocol.
4) Security requirements.
4. PPSP Requirements
4.1. Basic Requirements
PPSP.REQ-1: The tracker and the peer protocols SHOULD be as similar
as possible, in terms of design, message formats and flows.
It is desirable that the peer protocol would be an extension to the
tracker protocol by adding a few message types, or vice versa.
PPSP.REQ-2: The tracker protocol and the peer protocol SHOULD enable
peers to receive streaming content within the required time
constraints, i.e., fulfill streaming feature.
PPSP.REQ-3: Each peer MUST have a unique ID (i.e. peer ID) in a
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
swarm.
It's a basic requirement for a peer to be uniquely identified in a
swarm that other peers or tracker can refer to the peer by ID.
PPSP.REQ-4: The streaming content MUST be uniquely identified by a
swarm ID.
A swarm refers to a group of peers sharing the same streaming
content. A swarm ID uniquely identifies a swarm. The swarm ID can
be used in two cases: 1) a peer requests the tracker for the peer
list indexed by a swarm ID; 2) a peer tells the tracker about the
swarms it belongs to.
PPSP.REQ-5: The streaming content MUST allow to be partitioned into
chunks.
A key characteristic of P2P streaming system is allowing the data
fetching from different peers concurrently. Therefore, the whole
streaming content must allow to be partitioned into small pieces or
chunks for transmission between peers.
PPSP.REQ-6: Each chunk MUST have an unique ID (i.e. chunk ID) in the
swarm.
Each chunk must have an unique ID in the swarm such as the peer can
understand which chunks are stored in which peers and which chunks
are requested by other peers. An example for generating the chunk ID
is the buffer map approach [I-D.ietf-ppsp-survey].
PPSP.REQ-7: The tracker protocol and peer protocol are Recommended to
be carried over TCP (or UDP, when delivery requirements cannot be met
by TCP).
PPSP.REQ-8: The tracker and peer protocol together MUST facilitate
acceptable QoS (e.g. low startup delay, low channel/content switching
time and minimal end-to-end delay) for both on-demand and live
streaming, even for very popular content. The tracker and peer
protocol do not include the algorithm required for scalable
streaming. However, the tracker and peer protocol SHALL NOT restrict
or place limits on any such algorithm.
There are basic QoS requirements for streaming system. Setup time to
receive a new streaming channel or to switch between channels should
be reasonable small. End to end delay (time between content
generation, e.g. camera and content consumption, e.g. user side
monitor) will become critical in case of live streaming. Especially
in provisioning of sports events, end to end delay of 1 minute and
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
more are not acceptable.
For instance, the tracker and peer protocols can support carrying QoS
related parameters (e.g. video quality, delay requirements) together
with the priorities of these parameters, and QoS situation (e.g.
performance, available uplink bandwidth) of content providing peers.
There are also some other possible mechanisms, e.g. addition of super
peers, in-network storage, request of alternative peer addresses, and
the usage of QoS information for an advanced peer selection.
4.2. PPSP Tracker Protocol Requirements
The tracker protocol defines how the peers report and request
information to/from the tracker and how the tracker replies to the
requests. The tracker discovery and the possible communication
between trackers are out of the scope of tracker protocol.
PPSP.TP.REQ-1: The tracker MUST implement the tracker protocol for
receiving queries and periodical peer status reports/updates from the
peers and for sending the corresponding replies.
PPSP.TP.REQ-2: The peer MUST implement the tracker protocol for
sending queries and periodical peer status reports/updates to the
tracker and receiving the corresponding replies.
PPSP.TP.REQ-3: The tracker request message MUST allow the requesting
peer to solicit the peer list from the tracker with respect to a
specific swarm ID.
The tracker request message may also include the requesting peer's
preference parameter, e.g. preferred number of peers in the peer
list, or preferred downloading bandwidth. The track will then be
able to select an appropriate set of peers for the requesting peer
according to the preference.
PPSP.TP.REQ-4: The tracker reply message MUST allow the tracker to
offer the peer list to the requesting peer with respect of a specific
swarm ID.
PPSP.TP.REQ-5: The tracker SHOULD support generating the peer list
with the help of traffic optimization services, e.g. ALTO
[I-D.ietf-alto-protocol].
PPSP.TP.REQ-6: The peer status report/update MUST have the ability to
inform the tracker about the peer's activity in the swarm.
PPSP.TP.REQ-7: The chunk availability information of the peer SHOULD
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
be reported to tracker when tracker needs such information to steer
peer selection. The chunk information MUST at least contain the
chunk ID.
PPSP.TP.REQ-8: The chunk availability information between peer and
tracker MUST be as expressed as compactly as possible.
The peers may report CHUNK AVAILABILTY DIGEST information (i.e.
compact expression of chunk availability) to the tracker when
possible to decrease the bandwidth consumption for messages in
bandwidth constraint environment like mobile network. For example,
if a peer has a bitmap like 111111...1(100 continuous 1)xxx..., the
100 continuous "1" can be expressed by one byte with seven bits
representing 100 and one bit representing "1". In this example, 100-
8=92 bits are saved. Considering the frequency of exchange of CHUNK
AVAILBILITY and the fact that many bitmaps have quite a long length
of continuous "1" or "0", such compression makes sense.
PPSP.TP.REQ-9: The status of the peer SHOULD be reported to the
tracker when tracker needs such information to steer peer selection.
For example, peer status can be online time, physical link status
including DSL/WIFI/etc, battery status, processing capability, and
other capabilities of the peer. Therefore, the tracker is able to
select better candidate peers for streaming.
4.3. PPSP Peer Protocol Requirements
The peer protocol defines how the peers advertise streaming content
availability and exchange status with each other. The peer protocol
also defines the requests and responses of the chunks among the
peers. The first task for this WG will be to decide which signaling
and media transfer protocols will be used. The WG will consider
existing protocols and, if needed, identify potential extensions to
these protocols.
PPSP.PP.REQ-1: The streaming content availability request message
MUST allow the peer to solicit the chunk information from other peers
in the peer list. The chunk information MUST at least contain the
chunk ID. This chunk availability information MUST NOT be passed on
to other peer, unless validated (e.g. prevent hearsay and DoS).
PPSP.PP.REQ-2: The streaming content availability reply message MUST
allow the peer to offer the information of the chunks in its content
buffer. The chunk information MUST at least contain the chunk ID.
PPSP.PP.REQ-3: The streaming content availability request message
SHOULD allow the peer to solicit an additional list of peers to that
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
received from the tracker - with the same swarm ID. The reply
message MUST contain swarm-membership information of the peers that
have explicitly indicated they are part of the swarm, verifiable by
the receiver. This additional list of peers MUST only contain peers
which have been checked to be valid and online recently (e.g. prevent
hearsay and DoS).
It is possible that a peer may need additional peers for certain
streaming content. Therefore, it is allowed that the peer
communicates with the peers in the current peer list to obtain an
additional list of peers in the same swarm.
PPSP.PP.REQ-4: Streaming content availability update message among
the peers MUST be supported by peer protocol. In the push based
model, where peers advocate their own chunk availability proactively,
the content availability request message described in PP.REQ-1 is not
needed. The peer protocol MUST implement either pull-based, push-
based or both.
Due to the dynamic change of the buffered streaming content in each
peer and the frequent join/leave of peers in the swarm, the streaming
content availability among a peer's neighbours (i.e. the peers known
to a peer by getting the peer lists from either tracker or peers)
always changes and thus requires being updated on time. This update
should be done at least on demand. For example, when a peer requires
finding more peers with certain chunks, it sends a message to some
other peers in the swarm for streaming content availability update.
Alternatively, each peer in the swarm can advertise its streaming
content availability to some other peers periodically. However, the
detailed mechanisms for this update such as how far to spread such
update message, how often to send this update message, etc should
leave to peer algorithms, rather than protocol concerns.
PPSP.PP.REQ-5: The chunk availability information between peers MUST
be as expressed as compactly as possible.
In PP.REQ-1/2/4, the peers may exchange CHUNK AVAILABILTY DIGEST
information (i.e. compact expression of chunk availability) to with
other peers when possible to decrease the bandwidth consumption for
messages in bandwidth constraint environment like mobile network.
PPSP.PP.REQ-6: The peer status report/update SHOULD be advertised
among the peers to reflect the status of the peer.
Peer status information should be advertised among the peers via the
peer status report/update message. For example, peer status can be
online time, physical link status including DSL/WIFI/etc, battery
status, processing capability, and other capabilities of the peer.
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
With this information, a peer can select more appropriate peers for
streaming.
PPSP.PP.REQ-7: The peers MUST implement the peer protocol for chunk
data (not availability information) requests and responses among the
peers before the streaming content is transmitted.
5. Security Considerations
The scope of this section is to analyze the security threats and
provide the requirements for PPSP.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-1: PPSP MUST support closed swarms, where the peers are
authenticated.
This ensures that only the authenticated users can access the
original media in the P2P streaming system. This can be achieved by
security mechanisms such as user authentication and/or key management
scheme.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-2: Confidentiality of the streaming content in PPSP
SHOULD be supported and the corresponding key management scheme
SHOULD scale well in P2P streaming system.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-3: PPSP MUST provide an option to encrypt the data
exchange among the PPSP entities.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-4: PPSP MUST have mechanisms to limit potential damage
caused by malfunctioning and badly behaving peers in the P2P
streaming system.
Such an attack will degrade the quality of the rendered media at the
receiver. For example, in a P2P live video streaming system a
polluter can introduce corrupted chunks. Each receiver integrates
into its playback stream the polluted chunks it receives from its
other neighbors. Since the peers forwards chunks to other peers, the
polluted content can potentially spread through much of the P2P
streaming network.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-5: PPSP SHOULD support identifying badly behaving peers,
and exclude or reject them from the P2P streaming system.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-6: PPSP MUST prevent peers from DoS attacks which will
exhaust the P2P streaming system's available resource.
Given the prevalence of DoS attacks in the Internet, it is important
to realize that a similar threat could exist in a large-scale
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
streaming system where attackers are capable of consuming a lot of
resources with just a small amount of effort.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-7: PPSP SHOULD be robust, i.e., when centralized tracker
fails the P2P streaming system SHOULD still work by supporting
distributed trackers.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-8: Existing P2P security mechanisms SHOULD be re-used as
much as possible in PPSP, to avoid developing new security
mechanisms.
PPSP.SEC.REQ-9: Integrity of the streaming content in PPSP MUST be
supported to provide a peer with the possibility to identify
inauthentic media content (undesirable modified by other entities
rather than its genuine source). The corresponding checksum
distribution and verification scheme SHOULD scale well in P2P
streaming system and be robust against distrustful trackers/peers.
6. IANA Considerations
This document presently raises no IANA considerations.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank many people for discussing P2P
streaming. We would particularly like to thank: Yingjie Gu, Haibin
Song, Xingfeng Jiang from Huawei, Hui Zhang, Jan Seedorf, Martin
Stiemerling from NEC Labs, Jun Lei from University of Goettingen,
James Seng from PPLive, Das Saumitra from Qualcomm, Christian Schmidt
from NSN, Akbar Rahman from Interdigital, Lingli Deng from China
Mobile, Johan Pouwelse, Arno Bakker and Wesley Eddy.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[PPLive] "www.pplive.com".
[PPStream]
"www.ppstream.com".
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
[UUSee] "www.uusee.com".
[Pando] "www.pando.com".
[I-D.ietf-ppsp-survey]
Gu, Y., Zong, N., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Lei, J.,
Camarillo, G., Liu, Y., Montuno, D., and X. Lei, "Survey
of P2P Streaming Applications", draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02
(work in progress), July 2011.
[I-D.ietf-alto-protocol]
Alimi, R., Penno, R., and Y. Yang, "ALTO Protocol",
draft-ietf-alto-protocol-09 (work in progress), June 2011.
[I-D.ietf-ppsp-problem-statement]
Zhang, Y., Zong, N., Camarillo, G., Seng, J., and R. Yang,
"Problem Statement of P2P Streaming Protocol (PPSP)",
draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-05 (work in progress),
September 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Ning Zong (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Base, No.101 Software Avenue, Nanjing, China
Phone: +86 25 56624760
Email: zongning@huawei.com
Yunfei Zhang
China Mobile Communication Corporation
Phone: +86 13601032119
Email: zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com
Victor Pascual
Acme Packet
Anabel Segura 10, Madrid 28108, Spain
Email: VPascual@acmepacket.com
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PPSP Requirements October 2011
Carl Williams
Consultant
Palo Alto, California 94306
Email: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Lin Xiao
Nokia Siemens Networks
Phone: +86 10 84358977
Email: lin.xiao@nsn.com
Zong, et al. Expires April 10, 2012 [Page 14]
