Internet DRAFT - draft-conet-aeon-use-cases
draft-conet-aeon-use-cases
Internet Engineering Task Force W. George
Internet-Draft Time Warner Cable
Intended status: Informational P. Fan
Expires: January 5, 2015 China Mobile
S. Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
T. Reddy
C. Eckel
Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 4, 2014
Application Enabled Collaborative Networking Use Cases
draft-conet-aeon-use-cases-01
Abstract
This document describes application enabled collaborative networking
use cases. Application enabled collaborative networking has
applications explicitly signal their flow characteristics to the
network. This provides network nodes with visibility of the
application flow characteristics, which enables them to apply the
correct flow treatment and provide feedback to applications.
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 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
(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. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Firewall Traversal: Identification of new applications . 5
2.1.1. Description of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3. User/Application Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Operator Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.5. Flow characteristics provided by application . . . . 6
2.1.6. Action taken by firewall as result of receiving flow
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.7. Feedback provided by firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Efficient Capacity Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Description of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. User/Application Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.4. Operator Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.5. Flow characteristics provided by application . . . . 9
2.2.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.7. Feedback provided by network . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Video Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1. Description of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3. User/Application Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.4. Operator Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.5. Flow characteristics provided by application . . . . 11
2.3.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.7. Feedback provided by network . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4. Multi-interface selection: Use metadata to help interface
selection or prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.1. Description of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3. User/Application Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.4. Operator Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
2.4.5. Flow characteristics provided by application . . . . 13
2.4.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.7. Feedback provided by network . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. Session Identification: Identification of multiple media
flows belonging to a common application session . . . . . 13
2.5.1. Description of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.3. User/Application Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.4. Operator Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.5. Flow characteristics provided by application . . . . 14
2.5.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5.7. Feedback provided by network . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5.8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6. Content Based Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.1. Description of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6.3. User/Application Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.4. Operator Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.5. Flow characteristics provided by application . . . . 16
2.6.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.7. Feedback provided by network . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Identification and treatment of application flows are important to
many application providers and network operators. They often rely on
these capabilities to deploy and/or support a wide range of
applications. These applications, and the packet flows they generate
and consume, may require specific bandwidth, latency, etc., that can
be better met if made known to the network. Historically, this
functionality has been implemented to the extent possible using
heuristics, which inspect and infer flow characteristics. Heuristics
may be based on port ranges, network separation (e.g. subnets or
VLANs, Deep Flow Inspection (DFI), or Deep Packet Inspection (DPI).
But many application flows in current usages are dynamic, adaptive,
time-bound, encrypted, peer-to-peer, asymmetric, used on multipurpose
devices, and have different priorities depending on direction of
flow, user preferences, and other factors. Any combination of these
properties renders heuristic based techniques less effective and may
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
result in compromises to application security or user privacy, as
described in detail in [I-D.conet-aeon-problem-statement].
Application enabled collaborative networking allows applications to
explicitly signal their flow characteristics to the network. This
provides network nodes with visibility of the application flow
characteristics. These network nodes may take action based on this
visibility and/or contribute to the flow description. The resulting
flow description may be communicated as feedback from the network to
applications. This proposes a way of building collaborative
connections for network operators and application providers,
benefiting both of them as well as users. Network provider is able
to manage the traffic going through the network more effectively, and
application provider utilizes action taken by network on its traffic
to meet user requirement and expectation.
This document describes a set of use cases addressable by application
enabled collaborative networking.
2. Use Cases
The following use cases have been identified.
1. Firewall Traversal: Identification of new applications
2. Efficient Capacity Usage
3. Video Adaptation
4. Multi-interface selection: Use metadata to help interface
selection or prioritization.
5. Session Identification: Identification of multiple media flows
belonging to a common application session.
6. Content Based Charging
In describing each use case, the following information is provided.
o description of the problem
o proposed solution
o user/application benefit
o operator benefit
o flow characteristics provided by application
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
o action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics
o feedback provided by network
o security and privacy considerations
2.1. Firewall Traversal: Identification of new applications
2.1.1. Description of Problem
Modern firewalls use application-layer gateways (ALGs) to perform
policy enforcement. For example firewalls implement SIP-aware
Application Layer Gateway function, which examines the SIP signaling
and opens the appropriate pinholes for the RTP media. In particular
firewall extracts media transport addresses, transport protocol and
ports from session description and creates a dynamic mapping for
media to flow through. This model will not work in the following
cases:
1. Session signaling is end-to-end encrypted (say, using TLS).
2. Firewall does not understand the session signaling protocol, or
extensions to the protocol, used by the endpoints (e.g. WebRTC
signaling protocols).
3. Session signaling and media traverse different firewalls (e.g.,
signaling exits a network via one firewall whereas media exits a
network via a different firewall).
Enterprise networks that use firewalls with restrictive policies
block new applications like WebRTC and delay deployment of killer
applications.
2.1.2. Proposed Solution
These problems can be addressed by the host providing authorization
it received from an application server that is trusted by the network
to authorize flows and associated actions (e.g., policies). PCP
third party authorization ([I-D.wing-pcp-third-party-authz]) solves
this problem by associating the media session with the signaling
session. This is done by sending a cryptographic token in the
signaling which authorizes the firewall mapping for the media
session.
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
2.1.3. User/Application Benefit
Enterprise networks that use firewalls with restrictive policies can
deploy new applications at a faster rate for user benefit.
2.1.4. Operator Benefit
Enterprise firewalls can enforce restrictive policies without the
need to be enhanced to perform ALG on new applications. For example
Enterprise firewall could have granular policies to permit peer-to-
peer UDP media session only when the call is initiated using the
selected WebRTC server (Dr. Good) it trusts and block others (Dr.
Evil). PCP-aware firewalls can enforce such granular security
policies without performing ALG on the session signaling protocols.
This mechanism can be used by any other Application Function trusted
by the network to permit time-bound, encrypted, peer-to-peer traffic.
2.1.5. Flow characteristics provided by application
The client requests dynamic mappings to permit flows required by the
application. This request includes a cryptographic token and
characteristics of the flow, such as the anticipated bandwidth needs
as well as the tolerance to delay, loss, and jitter.
2.1.6. Action taken by firewall as result of receiving flow
characteristics
The firewall uses the client request to permit and prioritize the
traffic associated with those flows. The cryptographic token
provides authorization for the flows and their prioritization.
2.1.7. Feedback provided by firewall
Firewall matches the authorization data with what is requested in the
request sent by the client. If the authorization sets match, the
firewall processes the request made by the client. If the token is
invalid or the request exceeds what is authorized by the token then
firewall rejects the request.
2.1.8. Security and Privacy Considerations
2.2. Efficient Capacity Usage
2.2.1. Description of Problem
Network traffic is bursty and often follows diurnal usage patterns
such that there are times of day where traffic levels are at a peak,
and other times of day where they are at a valley. Networks that are
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
properly capacity planned need to have enough capacity to service the
traffic demands at peak. In a network with consistent demand and
usage patterns, keeping up with demand is a matter of building
capacity at a faster rate than the growth of the peak, in conjunction
with any requirements for diversity and fault tolerance as well as
any SLA for performance (latency, jitter, packet loss, etc) that may
inform which traffic is passed, which is prioritized, and which may
be dropped during periods of congestion. However, there are several
problems to consider in this context:
1. Simply building enough capacity for peak usage is not always
efficient and cost-effective, because not all traffic is the same
in terms of its need to transit the network at the exact moment
it is currently doing so, but few tools exist to provide
applications with the information they need to make more
intelligent decisions on demand, and thus they default to "as
soon as possible." For example, those watching streaming video
or doing real time communication or head to head gaming need
immediate access, while less real-time activities such as data
synchronization with the cloud for backups, or downloading
software updates, or preloading content onto a CDN could
potentially be deferred to times when more capacity is available,
but today, all of that traffic competes for the same capacity at
the same time.
2. QoS is not a substitute for capacity, and often a network
designed for long periods of congested operation provides a poor
user experience, since QoS ultimately is a method to identify
which traffic should be dropped first.
3. When the network is not at peak usage, there is capacity sitting
idle. Even in a well-used network capacity is built in
increments that may not match up with growth rate i.e. if a
network adds capacity in increments of 10G or 100G, but only
needed a small fraction of that until growth catches up. This
inefficiency is magnified when one considers the spare capacity
designed into most networks to address the need to tolerate one
or more failures in the network with minimal traffic impact. In
many cases, the idle capacity even at peak may be up to 50%, and
at off peak, it could be much higher.
4. Few networks have truly consistent demand and usage patterns.
While the average usage may follow a rough pattern, this does not
always provide for flash demands, where a large number of users
are simultaneously downloading an OS update, or all watching the
same event via streaming video, or more heavily using the network
due to being stuck at home during a snowstorm, etc. The average
usage patterns also do not take into account the effects of
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
outages at shifting large volumes of traffic around in the
network, and so managing these exception events either requires
further spare capacity, or acknowledgement that some traffic will
be dropped due to congestion, with the attendant impact to end
user experience.
2.2.2. Proposed Solution
Addressing this problem requires a multi-part solution:
o Provide a mechanism for the network to communicate to applications
when the network is busy and when it is not so that individual
applications can manage their demand based on the nature of the
application and its needs. This demand management helps to smooth
the traffic at peak by redirecting some of the demand to off-peak,
and has an analog in the power utility industry where demand based
pricing or smart grid technology signals devices that use a large
amount of power so that they can be intelligent about those
demands and reduce the burden on the available capacity of the
electrical grid.
o Similarly, provide a means for applications to communicate their
required performance envelope, as well as any data on how flexible
the time of data transmission can be, i.e. "I need this transfer
to complete by $time on $day" or "I need this transfer to complete
within 12 hours" etc. This information can be used by the network
to compute the best way to deliver the requested service, or to
identify when it cannot provide the request and suggest an
alternate.
o Provide a means for "below best effort" or scavenger class data
transmission so that traffic marked as scavenger will be carried
in periods where no congestion is present, but may be discarded
during periods of congestion due to either peak usage or outages.
This solution could also be used in conjunction with defined paths
through the network (TE, Segment Routing, etc) to provide capacity
for traffic that has specific performance requirements, or is not
sensitive to using a sub-optimal path. i.e. capacity exists on this
backup path that is much longer, so since this traffic does not care
about a few 10s of milliseconds of additional latency, it should be
marked to use the non-optimal path even if that path is not seen as
best by the routing protocol.
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
2.2.3. User/Application Benefit
Key user benefits include:
o Best service for real-time and other interactive applications
(less interference from non real-time or non-interactive traffic)
o More control over application bandwidth usage, potential for
service guarantees for important applications
2.2.4. Operator Benefit
Reduced cost via better/more efficient management of capacity/growth
while still providing first-class service to customers.
2.2.5. Flow characteristics provided by application
An application signals one or more of the following to the network:
o level of service required (e.g. guaranteed service, best-effort,
or below best effort)
o minimum requirement for transmission rate/throughput
o that it is tolerant/intolerant of high latency, high jitter, high
packet loss
o a request in the form "I need to deliver this data by X, when
should I send, and how should I identify the flow?"
2.2.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics
Potential action taken by the network include:
o Identify path through network that meets flow service requirements
o Treat marked traffic according to identified service type (e.g.
scavenger class carried in periods of low usage, and/or dropped
during congestion)
2.2.7. Feedback provided by network
Feedback provided by the network includes:
o Peak demand times, either proactively (e.g. this network peaks
daily between the hours of X and Y) or reactively through
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
something like Explicit Congestion Notification (this network is
at peak or is experiencing congestion right now)
o ACK/NACK for requested level of service, throughput, etc.
2.2.8. Security and Privacy Considerations
This requires a trust model between application and network so that
the information communicated about performance envelope requirements
can be trusted. In the case where there are different costs,
charging rates, tonnage limits by type of traffic, there is
opportunity for abuse (maliciously marking all traffic such that it
incurs additional cost, or such that it is dropped when it should not
be, etc). Even simpler data such as IP Precedence is often remarked
at the boundaries between networks as untrusted, so carrying this
sort of metadata likely requires a method to ensure that it was set
by a trusted entity and not manipulated in transit.
2.3. Video Adaptation
HTTP Adaptive Streaming (HAS) is an umbrella term for various HTTP-
based streaming technologies that allow a client to adaptively switch
between multiple bitrates, depending on current network conditions.
HAS client first requests and receives a Manifest File, and then,
after parsing the information in the Manifest File, proceeds with
sequentially requesting the chunks listed in the Manifest File.
2.3.1. Description of Problem
The problems with HAS are:
o HAS client selects the initial bitrate without knowing the current
network conditions which could cause start-up delay and frame
freezes while a lower bitrate chunk is being retrieved. HAS
client does not have a mechanism to signal the flow
characteristics and desired treatment to the network.
o HAS server can mark the packets appropriately but setting DSCP has
limitations. DSCP value may not be preserved or honored over the
Internet and operating system may not allow to set DSCP values.
o Content Providers may need a mechanism to convey the flow
characteristics and desired treatment to the ISP. Existing
mechanisms and the associated limitations are:
1. ISP can be configured with the IP addresses of content
providers to identify the traffic originating from those
servers. The limitations with this approach are ISP has to
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
keep track of content providers IP addresses. With CDNI
(Content Delivery Network InterConnection) content could be
served either from uCDN (upstream CDN) or any of a number of
dCDNs (downstream CDN) and it will not be possible to manually
track the IP addresses of all the CDN surrogates. There is
also no way to differentiate content which could be available
in different bitrates.
2. If HAS client is behind NAT and content provider uses RESTful
API (OneAPI) to install differentiated QoS then ISP will
struggle to find the pre-NAT information. Content provider
also needs to be aware of the ISP to which the client is
attached and the IP address of the Policy Decision Point (PDP)
in the ISP to which it needs to signal the flow
characteristics.
o ISP can use DPI to identify one-way video streaming content but is
expensive and fails if the traffic is encrypted.
2.3.2. Proposed Solution
HAS client can use third party authorization to request network
resources. At a high level, this authorization works by the client
first obtaining a cryptographic token from the authorizing network
element, then including that token in the request along with relevant
flow characteristics. ISP validates the token and grants the
request.
2.3.3. User/Application Benefit
This solution helps increase the average play quality, reduces the
start-up delay and frame freezes by avoiding attempt to retrieve a
too high-bit rate chunk etc thus improving the quality of experience
for end user.
2.3.4. Operator Benefit
Network operators can better recognize and treat one-way video
streaming content.
2.3.5. Flow characteristics provided by application
HAS client signals the flow characteristics such as the anticipated
bandwidth needs as well as the tolerance to delay, loss, and jitter.
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
2.3.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics
Subject to local policies, a network node might perform bandwidth
counting, or reconfigure the underlying network so that additional
bandwidth is made available for this particular flow, or might
perform other actions.
2.3.7. Feedback provided by network
The network responds that the client request can be fully or
partially accommodated. It also notifies the client when conditions
change.
2.3.8. Security and Privacy Considerations
2.4. Multi-interface selection: Use metadata to help interface
selection or prioritization
2.4.1. Description of Problem
An increasing number of hosts are operating in multiple-interface
environments and a host with multiple interfaces needs to choose the
best interface for communication. Oftentimes, this decision is based
on a static configuration and does not consider the link
characteristics of that interface, which may affect the user
experience. The network interfaces may have different link
characteristics, but that will not be known without the awareness of
the upstream and downstream characteristics of the access link.
2.4.2. Proposed Solution
The problem can be solved if a mechanism is provided for the
applications to communicate required flow characteristics with the
available interfaces, and know about network condition of each
interface, or to what extent application requirement of flow
characteristics can be met by each interface. Application can then
prioritize the interfaces based on information gathered and select
one or more interfaces that best meet its requirement.
2.4.3. User/Application Benefit
Applications can choose the interface that best meets their
requirements for communication. User experience is improved because
of the consistency between flow characteristics requested by
application and network ability provided by the selected interface.
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
2.4.4. Operator Benefit
The network that can provide the requested flow characteristics will
be selected by the application thus increasing the subscriber base of
the operator.
2.4.5. Flow characteristics provided by application
Application signals flow characteristics over multiple interfaces and
based on the response from its various interfaces sorts the source
addresses according to the link capacity characteristics. Source
addresses from the interface which best fulfills the desired flow
characteristics are assigned the highest priority and would be tried
first to communicate with the server or remote peer. For example
[I-D.reddy-mmusic-ice-best-interface-pcp] explains the mechanism
where Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) agent on a host
with multiple interfaces determines the link characteristics of the
host's interfaces, which influences the ICE candidate priority.
Similarly [I-D.wing-mptcp-pcp] explains how Multipath TCP (MPTCP) can
select the best path when multiple paths are available.
2.4.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics
Network identifies flow characteristics requested by applications,
and decides whether the request can be met or not.
2.4.7. Feedback provided by network
Link characteristics and ACK/NACK for flow requirement can be
provided as feedback by network.
2.4.8. Security and Privacy Considerations
Users/applications are expected to consider security of interfaces,
e.g. an untrusted public wifi access point will have lower priority
than a trusted VPN tunnel, when prioritizing and selecting the
interfaces.
2.5. Session Identification: Identification of multiple media flows
belonging to a common application session
2.5.1. Description of Problem
Many end-to-end application sessions involve multiple application
protocols, devices and administrative domains. These sessions
involve multiple media flows (e.g. an audio flow and a video flow for
a video call, media flows between different entities in a
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
supplementary service session consisting of multiple SIP dialogs or
H.323 calls). Media flows may be added/removed from a application
session during the lifetime of the session. From within the network,
determining which media flows are associated with each application
session is often difficult, making it hard to provide application
level troubleshooting, traffic analysis, and QoS.
2.5.2. Proposed Solution
Including a session identifier (e.g. as defined in [RFC7206]) in the
flow characteristics communicated by the application to the network
would allow the network to identify media flows belonging to a common
application session. This visibility would enable the following:
o network troubleshooting and traffic analysis tools to correctly
associate media flows with application sessions
o media flows that are part of established application sessions to
be identified (e.g. the triggered call in the case of a transfer)
and given dedicated QoS. Preserving established sessions
generally is higher priority than setting up new sessions (except
when there is some form of multi-level preemption). Giving more
bandwidth to additional flows on established sessions might cause
some newer sessions to fail due to resource unavailability while
established sessions continue without degradation, which is the
preferred outcome in most cases.
2.5.3. User/Application Benefit
Users receive more predictable and reliable QoS for their application
sessions.
2.5.4. Operator Benefit
Operators are able to perform traffic analysis and troubleshooting at
the application level, and they are able to provide QoS at the
application level rather than only at the media flow level.
2.5.5. Flow characteristics provided by application
The application provides a common session id as metadata for all its
media flows throughout the lifetime of the session.
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
2.5.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics
The network identifies all media flows associated with a given
session. This information may be used to provide application level
QoS, preserving established sessions and/or giving more bandwidth to
additional flows on established sessions.
2.5.7. Feedback provided by network
The network may provide feedback to the application indicating the
amount of bandwidth it expects to be able to provide for its session.
It may also be provide indications of the expected amount of delay,
jitter, and loss the application should be prepared to tolerate.
2.5.8. Security and Privacy Considerations
2.6. Content Based Charging
2.6.1. Description of Problem
Commonly used billing method for internet subscribers, e.g. volume
based charging, does not distinguish usage from the angle of
applications. Under this billing model ISP cannot apply different
pricing strategies to the applications it carries, users may hesitate
to use certain types of applications, e.g. mobile apps consuming
large volume, and application developers also have to strive for
volume apart from user preference and usage time. Content based
charging is an emerging billing method that takes content related
information into account and enables smarter pricing strategy.
Operators can place different prices for different types of traffic,
and help content providers build tight relationship with their users,
e.g. wholesaling the data volume of an application to its developer
content provider so that users can use the application free of
charge. Content based charging is required to precisely identify
traffic that belongs to a certain pricing category in a way that is
flexible and easy to manage, and granularity of traffic may range
from types of applications to a detailed service function within an
application. Those requirements reflex limitations in the current
heuristics.
2.6.2. Proposed Solution
In order to address this problem a mechanism is needed to allow
applications to notify its existence to the network by describing
traffic flows needing a certain charging method. Network will then
have direct visibility into the traffic and identify targeted traffic
accordingly. This billing model usually involves collaboration
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
between network and content providers. The notification needs to go
through an authentication function to guarantee the application is
reliable and probably an identifier for network to identify the
application that has service agreement with ISP. ISP will identify
traffic based on characteristics notified by application and apply
designated billing strategy.
2.6.3. User/Application Benefit
Users take advantage of the granular and customized charging model,
and pay for different types of traffic at different rate. This
charging model will reduce volume expense for users and stimulate
internet usage. Content provider can benefit from providing users
with exclusive payment function, e.g. pay for traffic volume or
provide cheap volume package, and increase user enthusiasm and time
to use its applications.
2.6.4. Operator Benefit
The solution will provide operators with a method to precisely
identify and charge traffic based on content, and to agilely manage
charging strategy of applications. Operators are able to cooperate
with content providers to provide this new billing service to users
and encourage encourage traffic consumption.
2.6.5. Flow characteristics provided by application
Application notifies network of its identifier and traffic
description to enable network to recognize its traffic accordingly.
Application may also signal its intended charging model as a request
to the network.
2.6.6. Action taken by network as result of receiving flow
characteristics
Network identifies traffic flows notified by the application and
applies the designated billing model based on application request and
business agreement with the content provider providing the
application.
2.6.7. Feedback provided by network
2.6.8. Security and Privacy Considerations
There needs to be an authentication mechanism so as to ensure that
traffic characteristics provider is right the authorized application
the ISP has the charging agreement with.
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
3. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the attendees of the Bar BoF for contributing
towards this set of use cases.
4. Informative References
[I-D.conet-aeon-problem-statement]
Fan, P., Deng, H., Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., and C. Eckel,
"Application Enabled Collaborative Networking: Problem
Statement and Requirements", draft-conet-aeon-problem-
statement-00 (work in progress), May 2014.
[I-D.reddy-mmusic-ice-best-interface-pcp]
Reddy, T., Wing, D., Steeg, B., Penno, R., and V. Varun,
"Improving ICE Interface Selection Using Port Control
Protocol (PCP) Flow Extension", draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-
best-interface-pcp-00 (work in progress), October 2013.
[I-D.wing-mptcp-pcp]
Wing, D., R, R., Reddy, T., Ford, A., and R. Penno,
"Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Path Selection using PCP", draft-
wing-mptcp-pcp-00 (work in progress), October 2013.
[I-D.wing-pcp-third-party-authz]
Wing, D., Reddy, T., Patil, P., and R. Penno, "PCP
Extension for Third Party Authorization", draft-wing-pcp-
third-party-authz-03 (work in progress), April 2014.
[RFC7206] Jones, P., Salgueiro, G., Polk, J., Liess, L., and H.
Kaplan, "Requirements for an End-to-End Session
Identification in IP-Based Multimedia Communication
Networks", RFC 7206, May 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Wesley George
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: wesley.george@twcable.com
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft AEON/CONET Use Cases July 2014
Peng Fan
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumen West Street
Beijing 100053
China
Email: fanpeng@chinamobile.com
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku
Tokyo
Japan
Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: tireddy@cisco.com
Charles Eckel
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: eckelcu@cisco.com
George, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 18]
