CDNI R. van Brandenburg
Internet-Draft O. van Deventer
Intended status: Informational TNO
Expires: November 23, 2012 F. Le Faucheur
K. Leung
Cisco Systems
May 22, 2012
Models for adaptive-streaming-aware CDN Interconnection
draft-brandenburg-cdni-has-01
Abstract
This documents presents thoughts on the potential impact of
supporting HTTP Adaptive Streaming technologies in CDN
Interconnection scenarios. Our intent is to spur discussion on how
the different CDNI interfaces could, and should, deal with content
delivered using adaptive streaming technologies and to facilitate
working group decisions.
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 November 23, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. HTTP Adaptive Streaming aspects relevant to CDNI . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Segmentation versus Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Addressing chunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Relative URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Absolute URLs with Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. Absolute URL without Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Possible HAS Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. File Management and Content Collections . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. Option 1.1: No HAS awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Option 1.2: Allow single file storage of
fragmented content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Content Acquisition of Content Collections . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1. Option 2.1: No HAS awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2. Option 2.2: Allow single file acquisition of
fragmented content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Request Routing of HAS content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.1. Option 3.1: No HAS awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2. Option 3.2: Manifest File rewriting by uCDN . . . . . 16
3.3.3. Option 3.3: Two-step Manifest File rewriting . . . . . 17
3.4. Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.1. HAS Considerations for CDNI Logging . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.2. Candidate Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.2.1. Option 4.1: "Do-Nothing" Approach . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.2.2. Option 4.2: "CDNI Metadata Content Collection
ID" Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.2.3. Option 4.3: "CDNI Metadata Content Collection
ID With dCDN Summarization" Approach . . . . . . . 21
3.4.2.4. Option 4.4: "CDNI Logging Interface
Compression" Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.2.5. Option 4.5: "Full HAS awareness" Approach . . . . 23
3.5. URL Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5.1. URL Signing in CDNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5.2. Option 5.1: No HAS awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5.3. Option 5.2: HAS-awareness with Authorization Token . . 27
3.5.4. Option 5.3: HAS-awareness with Session Based
Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6. Content Purge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6.1. Option 6.1: No HAS awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
3.6.2. Option 6.2: Purge Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
1. Introduction
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. A
defining aspect of HAS is that, since it is based on HTTP, it is a
pull-based mechanism, with a client actively requesting content
segments, instead of the content being pushed to the client by a
server. Due to this pull-based nature, media servers delivering
content using HAS often show different characteristics when compared
with media servers delivering content using traditional streaming
methods such as RTP/RTSP, RTMP and MMS. This document presents a
discussion on what the impact of these different characteristics is
to the CDNI interfaces and what HAS-specific optimizations may be
required or may be desirable. The scope of this document in its
current form is explicitly not to propose any specific solution, but
merely to present the available options so that the WG can make an
informed decision on which way to go.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in
[I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement].
In addition, the following terms are used throughout this document:
Content Item: A uniquely addressable content element in a CDN. A
content item is defined by the fact that it has its own Content
Metadata associated with it. It is the object of a request routing
operation in a CDN. An example of a Content Item is a video file/
stream, an audio file/stream or an image file.
Chunk: a fixed length element that is the result of a segmentation or
fragmentation operation and that is independently addressable.
Fragment: A specific form of chunk (see Section 2.1). A fragment is
stored as part of a larger file that includes all chunks that are
part of the Chunk Collection.
Segment: A specific form of chunk (see Section 2.1). A segment is
stored as a single file from a file system perspective.
Original Content: Not-chunked content that is the basis for a
segmentation of fragmentation operation. Based on Original Content,
multiple alternative representations (using different encoding
methods, supporting different resolutions and/or targeting different
bitrates) may be derived, each of which may be fragmented or
segmented.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
Chunk Collection: The set of all chunks that are the result of a
single segmentation or fragmentation operation being performed on a
single representation of the Original Content. A Chunk Collection is
described in a Manifest File.
Content Collection: The set of all Chunk Collections that are derived
from the same Original Content. A Content Collection may consist of
multiple Chunk Collections, each corresponding to a single
representation of the Original Content. A Content Collection may be
described by one or more Manifest Files.
Manifest File: A Manifest File, also referred to as Media
Presentation Description (MPD) file, is a file that list the way the
content has been chunked (possibly for multiple encodings) and where
the various chunks are located (in the case of segments) or how they
can be addressed (in the case of fragments).
2. HTTP Adaptive Streaming aspects relevant to CDNI
In the last couple of years, a wide variety of HAS-like protocols
have emerged. Among them are proprietary solutions such as Apple's
HTTP Live Streaming (HLS), Microsoft's Smooth Streaming (HSS) and
Adobe's HTTP Dynamic Streaming (HDS), and various standardized
solutions such as 3GPP Adaptive HTTP Streaming (AHS) and MPEG Dynamic
Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH). While all of these technologies
share a common set of features, each has its own defining elements.
This chapter will look at some of the common characteristics and some
of the differences between these technologies and how those might be
relevant to CDNI. In particular, Section 2.1 will describe the
various methods to store HAS content and Section 2.2 will list three
methods that are used to address HAS content in a CDN.
2.1. Segmentation versus Fragmentation
All HAS implementations are based around a concept referred to as
chunking: the concept of having a server split content up in numerous
fixed duration chunks, which are independently decodable. By
sequentially requesting and receiving chunks, a client can recreate
and play out the content. An advantage of this mechanism is that it
allows a client to seamlessly switch between different encodings of
the same Original Content at chunk boundaries. Before requesting a
particular chunk, a client can choose between multiple alternative
encodings of the same chunk, irrespective of the encoding of the
chunks it has requested earlier.
While every HAS implementation uses some form of chunking, not all
implementations store the resulting chunks in the same way. In
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
general, there are two distinct methods of performing chunking and
storing the results: segmentation and fragmentation.
- With segmentation, which is for example mandatory in all versions
of Apple's HLS prior to version 7, the chunks, in this case also
referred to as segments, are stored completely independent from
each other, with each segment being stored as a separate file from
a file system perspective. This means that each segment has its
own unique URL with which it can be retrieved.
- With fragmentation (or virtual segmentation), which is for example
used in Microsoft's Smooth Streaming, all chunks, or fragments,
belonging to the same Chunk Collection are stored together, as
part of a single file. While there are a number of container
formats which allow for storing this type chunked content,
Fragmented MP4 is most commonly used. With fragmentation, a
specific chunk is addressable by subfixing the common file URL
with an identifier uniquely identifying the chunk one is
interested in, either by timestamp, by byterange, or in some other
way.
While one can argue about the merits of each of these two different
methods of handling chunks, both have their advantages and drawbacks
in a CDN environment. For example, fragmentation is often regarded
as a method that introduces less overhead, both from a storage and
processing perspective. Segmentation on the other hand, is regarded
as being more flexible and easier to cache. In practice, current HAS
implementations increasingly support both methods.
2.2. Addressing chunks
In order for a client to request chunks, either in the form of
segments or in the form of fragments, it needs to know how the
content has been chunked and where to find the chunks. For this
purpose, most HAS protocols use a concept that is often referred to
as a Manifest File (also known as Media Presentation Description, or
MPD); i.e. a file that lists the way the content has been chunked and
where the various chunks are located (in the case of segments) or how
they can be addressed (in the case of fragments). A Manifest File,
or set of Manifest Files, may also identify the different encodings,
and thus Chunk Collections, the content is available in.
In general, a HAS client will first request and receive a Manifest
File, and then, after parsing the information in the Manifest File,
proceed with sequentially requesting the chunks listed in the
Manifest File. Each HAS implementation has its own Manifest File
format and even within a particular format there are different
methods available to specify the location of a chunk.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
Of course managing the location of files is a core aspect of every
CDN, and each CDN will have its own method of doing so. Some CDNs
may be purely cache-based, with no higher-level knowledge of where
each file resides at each instant in time. Other CDNs may have
dedicated management nodes which, at each instant in time, do know at
which servers each file resides. The CDNI interfaces designed in the
CDNI WG will probably need to be agnostic to these kinds of CDN-
internal architecture decisions. In the case of HAS there is a
strict relationship between the location of the content in the CDN
(in this case chunks) and the content itself (the locations specified
in the Manifest File). It is therefore useful to have an
understanding of the different methods in use in CDNs today for
specifying chunk locations in Manifest Files. The different methods
for doing so are described in sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.3.
Although these sections are especially relevant for segmented
content, due to its inherent distributed nature, the discussed
methods are also applicable to fragmented content. Furthermore, it
should be noted that the methods detailed below for specifying
locations of content items in Manifest Files do not only relate to
temporally segmented content (e.g. segments and fragments), but are
also relevant in situations where content is made available in
multiple representations (e.g., in different qualities, encoding
methods, resolutions and/or bitrates). In this case the content
consists of multiple chunk collections, which may be described by
either a single Manifest File or multiple interrelated manifest
files. In the latter case, there may be a high-level Manifest File
describing the various available bitrates, with URLs pointing to
separate Manifest Files describing the details of each specific
bitrate. For specifying the locations of the other Manifest Files,
the same methods apply that are used for specifying chunk locations.
2.2.1. Relative URLs
One method for specifying chunk locations in a Manifest File is
through the use of relative URLs. A relative URL is a URL that does
not include the HOST part of a URL but only includes (part of) the
PATH part of a URL. In practice, a relative URL is used by the
client as being relative to the location where the Manifest File has
been acquired from. In these cases a relative URL will take the form
of a string that has to be appended to the location of the Manifest
File to get the location of a specific chunk. This means that in the
case a manifest with relative URLs is used, all chunks will be
delivered by the same surrogate that delivered the Manifest File. A
relative URL will therefore not include a hostname.
For example, in the case a Manifest File has been requested (and
received) from:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
http://surrogate.server.cdn.example.com/content_1/manifest.xml
, a relative URL pointing to a specific segment referenced in the
manifest might be:
segments/segment1_1.ts
Which means that the client should take the location of the manifest
file and append the relative URL. In this case, the segment would
then be requested from http://surrogate.server.cdn.example.com/
content_1/segments/segment1_1.ts
The downside of using relative URLs is that it forces a CDN to
deliver all segments belonging to a given content item with the same
surrogate that delivered the Manifest File for that content item.
The advantage of relative URLs is that it is very easy to transfer
content between different surrogates and even CDNs.
2.2.2. Absolute URLs with Redirection
Another method for specifying locations of chunks (or other manifest
files) in a Manifest File is through the use of an absolute URL. An
absolute URL contains a fully formed URL (i.e. the client does not
have to calculate the URL as in the case of the relative URL but can
use the URL from the manifest directly).
In the context of Manifest Files, there are two types of absolute
URLs imaginable: Absolute URLs with Redirection and Absolute URLs
without Redirection. The two methods differ in whether the URL
points to a request routing node which will redirect the client to a
surrogate (Absolute URL with Redirection) or point directly to a
surrogate hosting the requested content (Absolute URL without
Redirection).
In the case of Absolute URLs with Redirection, a request for a chunk
is handled by the request routing system of a CDN just as if it were
a standalone (non-HAS) content request, which might include looking
up the surrogate (and/or CDN) best suited for delivering the
requested chunk to the particular user and sending an HTTP redirect
to the user with the URL pointing to the requested chunk on the
specified surrogate (and/or CDN), or a DNS response pointing to the
specific surrogate.
An example of an Absolute URL with Redirection might look as follows:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
http://requestrouting.cdn.example.com/
content_request?content=content_1&segment=segment1_1.ts
As can be seen from this example URL, the URL includes a pointer to a
general CDN request routing function and includes some arguments
identifying the requested segment.
The advantage of using Absolute URLs with Redirection is that it
allows for maximum flexibility (since chunks can be distributed
across surrogates and CDN in any imaginable way) without having to
modify the Manifest File every time one or more chunks are moved (as
is the case when Absolute URLs without Redirection are used). The
downside of this method is that it can adds significant load to a CDN
request routing system, since it has to perform a redirect every time
a client requests a new chunk.
2.2.3. Absolute URL without Redirection
In the case of the Absolute URL without Redirection, the URL points
directly to the specific chunk on the actual surrogate that will
deliver the requested chunk to the client. In other words, there
will be no HTTP redirection operation taking place between the client
requesting the chunk and the chunk being delivered to the client by
the surrogate.
An example of an Absolute URLs without Redirection is the following:
http://surrogate.cdn.example.com/content_1/segments/segment1_1.ts
As can be seen from this example URL, the URL includes both the
identifier of the requested segment (in this case segment1_1.ts), as
well as the server that is expected to deliver the segment (in this
case surrogate.cdn.example.com). With this, the client has enough
information to directly request the specific segment from the
specified surrogate.
The advantage of using Absolute URLs without Redirection is that it
allows more flexibility compared to using Relative URLs (since
segments do not necessarily have to be delivered by the same server)
while not requiring per-segment redirection (which would add
significant load to the node doing the redirection). The drawback of
Absolute URLs without Redirection is that it requires a modification
of the Manifest File every time content is moved to a different
location (either within a CDN or across CDNs).
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
3. Possible HAS Optimizations
In the previous chapter, some of the unique properties of HAS have
been discussed. Furthermore, some of the CDN-specific design
decisions with regards to addressing chunks have been detailed. In
this chapter, the impact of supporting HAS in CDN Interconnection
scenarios will be discussed.
There are a number of topics, or problem areas, that are of
particular interest when considering the combination of HAS and CDNI.
For each of these problem areas it holds that there are a number of
different ways in which the CDNI Interfaces can deal with them. In
general it can be said that each problem area can either be solved in
a way that minimizes the amount of HAS-specific changes to the CDNI
Interfaces or in way that maximizes the flexibility and efficiency
with which the CDNI Interfaces can deliver HAS content. The goal for
the CDNI WG should probably be to try to find the middle ground
between these two extremes and try to come up with solutions that
optimize the balance between efficiency and additional complexity.
In order to allow the WG to make this decision, this chapter will
briefly describe each of the following problem areas together with a
number of different options for dealing with them. Section 3.1 will
discuss the problem of how to deal with file management of groups of
files, or Content Collections. Section 3.2 will deal with a related
topic: how to do content acquisition of Content Collections between
the uCDN and dCDN. After that, Section 3.3 describes the various
options for the request routing of HAS content, particularly related
to Manifest Files. Section 3.4 talks about a number of possible
optimizations for the logging of HAS content, while Section 3.5
discusses the options regarding URL signing. Section 3.6 finally,
describes different scenarios for dealing with the removal of HAS
content from CDNs.
3.1. File Management and Content Collections
One of the unique properties of HAS content is that it does not
consist of a single file or stream but of multiple interrelated files
(segment, fragments and/or Manifest Files). In this document this
group of files is also referred to as a Content Collection. Another
important aspect is the difference between segments and fragments
(see Section 2.1).
Irrespective of whether segments or fragments are used, different
CDNs might handle Content Collections differently from a file
management perspective. For example, some CDNs might handle all
files belonging to a Content Collection as individual files, which
are stored independently from each other. An advantage of this
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
approach is that makes it easy to cache individual chunks. Other
CDNs might store all fragments belonging to a Content Collection in a
bundle, as if they were a single file (e.g. by using a fragmented MP4
container). The advantage of this approach is that it reduces file
management overhead.
This section will look at the various ways with which the CDNI
interfaces might deal with these differences in handling Content
Collections from a file management perspective. The different
options can be distinguished based on the level of HAS-awareness they
require on the part of the different CDNs and the CDNI interfaces.
3.1.1. Option 1.1: No HAS awareness
This first option assumes no HAS awareness in both the involved CDNs
and the CDNI Interfaces. This means that the uCDN uses individual
files and the dCDN is not explicitely made aware of the relationship
between chunks and it doesn't know which files are part of the same
Content Collection. In practice this scenario would mean that the
file management method used by the uCDN is simply imposed on the dCDN
as well.
This scenario also means that it is not possible for the dCDN to use
any form of file bundling, such as the single-file mechanism which
can be to store fragmented content as a single file (see
Section 2.1). The one exception to this rule is the situation where
the content is fragmented and the Manifest Files on the uCDN contains
byte range requests, in which case the dCDN might be able to acquire
fragmented content as a single file (see Section 3.2.2).
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ No HAS awareness necessary in CDNs, no changes to CDNI Interfaces
necessary
- The dCDN is forced to store chunks as individual files.
3.1.2. Option 1.2: Allow single file storage of fragmented content
In some cases, the dCDN might prefer to store fragmented content as a
single file on its surrogates to reduce file management overhead. In
order to do so, it needs to be able to either acquire the content as
a single file (see Section 3.2.2), or merge the different chunks
together and place them in the same container (e.g. fragmented MP4).
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
The downside of this is that in order to do so, the dCDN needs to be
fully HAS aware.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o CDNI Metadata Interface: Add fields for indicating the particular
type of HAS (e.g. MPEG DASH or HLS) that is used and whether
segments or fragments are used
o CDNI Metadata Interface: Add field for indicating the name and
type of the manifest file(s)
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Allows dCDN to store fragmented content as a single file, reducing
file management overhead
- Complex operation, requiring dCDN to be fully HAS aware
3.2. Content Acquisition of Content Collections
In the previous section the relationship between file management and
HAS in a CDNI scenario has been discussed. This section will discuss
a related topic, which is content acquisition between two CDNs.
3.2.1. Option 2.1: No HAS awareness
This first option assumes no HAS awareness in both the involved CDNs
and the CDNI Interfaces. Just as with Option 1.1 discussed in the
previous section with regards to file management, having no HAS
awareness means that the dCDN is not aware of the relationship
between chunks. In the case of content acquisition, this means that
each and every file belonging to a Content Collection will have to be
individually acquired from the uCDN by the dCDN. The exception to
the rule is in cases with fragmented content where the uCDN uses
Manifest Files which contain byte range requests. In this case the
dCDN can simply omit the byte range identifier and acquire the
complete file.
The advantage of this approach is that it is highly flexible. If a
client only requests a small portion of the chunks belonging to a
particular Content Collection, the dCDN only has to acquire those
chunks from the uCDN, saving both bandwidth and storage capacity.
The downside of acquiring content on a per-chunk basis is that it
creates more transaction overhead between the dCDN and uCDN compared
to a method in which entire Content Collections can be acquired as
part of one transaction.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Per-chunk content acquisition allows for high level of flexibility
between dCDN and uCDN
- Per-chunk content acquisition creates more transaction overhead
between dCDN and uCDN
3.2.2. Option 2.2: Allow single file acquisition of fragmented content
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, there is one (fairly rare) in cases
where fragmented content can be acquired as a single file without any
HAS awareness and that is when fragmented content is used and where a
Manifest File includes byte range request. This section discusses
how to perform single file acquisition in the other (very common)
cases. To do so, the dCDN would have to have full-HAS awareness (at
least to the extent of being able to map between single file and
individual chunks to serve).
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o CDNI Metadata Interface: Add fields for indicating the particular
type of HAS (e.g. MPEG DASH or HLS) that is used and whether
segments or fragments are used
o CDNI Metadata Interface: Add field for indicating the name and
type of the manifest file(s)
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Allows for more efficient content acquisition in all HAS-specific
supported forms
- Requires full HAS awareness on part of dCDN
- Requires significant CDNI Metadata Interface extensions
3.3. Request Routing of HAS content
In this section the effect HAS content has on request routing will be
identified. Of particular interest in this case are the different
types of Manifest Files that might be used. In Section 2.2, three
different methods for identifying and addressing chunks from within a
Manifest File were described: Relative URLs, Absolute URLs without
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
Redirection and Absolute URLs with Redirection. Of course not every
current CDN will use and/or support all three methods. Some CDNs may
only use one of the three methods, while others may support two or
all three.
An important factor in deciding which chunk addressing method is used
is the Content Provider. Some Content Providers may have a strong
preference for a particular method and deliver the Manifest Files to
the CDN in a particular way. Depending on the CDN and the agreement
it has with the Content Provider, a CDN may either host the Manifest
Files as they were created by the Content Provider, or modify the
Manifest File to adapt it to its particular architecture (e.g. by
changing relative URLs to Absolute URLs which point to the CDN
Request Routing function).
3.3.1. Option 3.1: No HAS awareness
This first option assumes no HAS awareness in both the involved CDNs
and the CDNI Interfaces. This scenario also assumes that neither the
dCDN nor the uCDN have the ability to actively manipulate Manifest
Files. As was also discussed with regards to file management and
content acquisition, having no HAS awareness means that each file
constituting a Content Collections is handled on an individual basis,
with the dCDN unaware of any relationship between files.
The only chunk addressing method that works without question in this
case is Absolute URLs with Redirection. In other words, the Content
Provider that ingested the content into the uCDN created a Manifest
File with each chunk location pointing to the Request Routing
function of the uCDN. Alternatively, the Content Provider may have
ingested the Manifest File containing relative URLs and the uCDN
ingestion function has translated these to Absolute URLs pointing to
the Request Routing function.
In this Absolute URL with Redirection case, the uCDN can simply have
the Manifest File be delivered by the dCDN as if it were a regular
file. Once the client parses the Manifest File, it will request any
subsequent chunks from the uCDN Request Routing function. That
function can then decide to outsource the delivery of that chunk to
the dCDN. In that case it will probably redirect the client to the
Request Routing function of the dCDN (assuming it does not have the
necessary information to redirect the client directly to a surrogate
in the dCDN). The drawback of this method is that it creates a large
amount of request routing overhead for both the uCDN and dCDN. For
each chunk the full inter-CDN Request Routing process is invoked
(which can result in two redirections in the case of iterative
redirection, or result in one redirection plus one CDNI Request
Routing/Redirection Interface request/response).
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
With no HAS awareness, Relative URLs might or might not work
depending on the HAS client implementation that is used. When a uCDN
delegates the delivery of a Manifest File containing Relative URLs to
a dCDN, the client goes directly to the dCDN surrogate from which it
has received the Manifest File for every subsequent chunk. The
question here is whether the HAS client uses the IP address or the
hostname in its chunk request to the dCDN surrogate. In case it uses
the exact same hostname with which it requested the manifest file
(and which is the result of a request routing operation) than
everything works properly (because the dCDN can easily associate the
CDNI metadata for the corresponding chuck and therefor serve the
corresponding request). However, in situations where the client uses
the IP address of the surrogate or does a reverse DNS look-up, the
dCDN surrogate may not be able to associate CDNI metadata with the
chucnk request and therefore may not be able to serve it. One
exception to this is in the scenario where the PATH or QUERY part of
the chunk request URL is enough to uniquely identify the particular
chunk, in which case the dCDN Surrigate can associate CDNI metadata
and serve the request
Since using Absolute URLs without Redirection inherently require a
HAS aware CDN, they also cannot be used in this case. The reason for
this is that with Absolute URLs without Redirection, the URLs in the
Manifest File will point directly to a surrogate in the uCDN. Since
this scenario assumes no HAS awareness on the part of the dCDN or
uCDN, it is impossible for either of these CDNs to rewrite the
Manifest File and thus allow the client to either go to a surrogate
in the dCDN or to a request routing function.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Supports Absolute URLs with Redirection
+ Does not require HAS awareness and/or changes to the CDNI
Interfaces
- Not possible to use Absolute URLs without Redirection
- Support for Relative URLs suffers from some brittleness. Makes
assumptions on client-side implementation of the HAS client or on
structure of PATH or QUERY
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
- Creates significant signaling overhead in case Absolute URLs with
Redirection are used (inter-CDN request redirection for each
chunk)
3.3.2. Option 3.2: Manifest File rewriting by uCDN
While Option 3.1 does allow for Absolute URLs with Redirection to be
used, it does so in a way that creates a high-level of request
routing overhead for both the dCDN and the uCDN. This option
presents a solution to significantly reduce this overhead.
In this scenario, the uCDN is able to modify the Manifest File to be
able to remove itself from the request routing chain for chunks being
referenced in the Manifest File. As described in Section 3.3.1, in
the case of no HAS awareness the client will go to the uCDN request
routing function for each chunk request. This request routing
function can then redirect the client to the dCDN request routing
function. By rewriting the Manifest File, the uCDN is able to remove
this first step, and have the Manifest File point directly to the
dCDN request routing function.
In order for the uCDN to be able to do this, it needs the location of
the dCDN request routing function (or even better: the location of
the dCDN surrogate). The simplest way to obtain this information is
to use the CDNI Request Routing Interface in one of two ways. The
first way would be to have the uCDN ask the dCDN for the location of
its request routing node (through the CDNI Request Routing/
Redirection Interface) every time a request for a Manifest File comes
in at the uCDN request routing node. The uCDN would then modify the
manifest file and deliver the manifest file to the client. A second
way to do it would be for the modification of the manifest file to
only happen once, when the first client for that particular Content
Collection (and redirected to that particular dCDN) sends a Manifest
File request. The advantage of the first method is that it maximizes
effiency and flexibility by allowing the dCDN to respond with the
locations of its surrogates instead of the location of its request
routing function (and effectively turning the URLs into Absolute URLs
without Redirection). The advantage of the second method is that the
uCDN only has to modify the Manifest File once.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o CDNI Request Routing Interface: Allow uCDN to query dCDN for the
location of its request routing function (is this covered by the
existing RR interface?)
o uCDN: Allow for modification of manifest file
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Possible to significantly decrease signalling overhead when using
Absolute URLs.
+ (Optional) Possible to have uCDN modify manifest with locations of
surrogates in dCDN (turning Absolute URLs with Redirection in
Absolute URLs without Redirection)
+ Minimal changes to CDNI Interfaces (no HAS awareness)
+ Does not require HAS awareness in dCDN
- Requires high level of HAS awareness in uCDN (for modifying
manifest files)
3.3.3. Option 3.3: Two-step Manifest File rewriting
One of the possibilities with Option 3.3 is allowing the dCDN to
provide the locations of a specific surrogate to the uCDN, so that
the uCDN can fit the Manifest File with Absolute URLs without
Redirection and the client can request chunks directly from a dCDN
surrogate. However, some dCDNs might not be willing to provide this
sensitive information to the uCDN. In that case they can only
provide the uCDN with the location of their request routing function
and thereby not be able to use Absolute URLs without Redirection.
One method for solving this limitation is allowing two-step Manifest
File manipulation. In the first step the uCDN would perform its own
modification, and place the locations of the dCDN request routing
function in the Manifest File. Then, once a request for the Manifest
File comes in at the dCDN request routing function, it would perform
a second modification in which it replaces the URLs in the Manifest
Files with the URLs of its surrogates. This way the dCDN can still
profit from having minimal request routing traffic, while not having
to share sensitive surrogate information with the uCDN.
The downside of this approach is that it not only assumes HAS
awareness in the dCDN but that it also requires some HAS-specific
additions to the CDNI Metadata Interface. In order for the dCDN to
be able to change the Manifest File, it has to have some information
about the structure of the content. Specifically, it needs to have
information about which chunks make up the Content Collection.
Effect on CDN Interfaces (apart from those listed under Option 3.3):
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
o CDNI Metadata Interface: Add necessary fields for conveying HAS
specific information (e.g. the files that make up the Content
Collection) to the dCDN.
o dCDN: Allow for modification of manifest file
Advantages/Drawbacks (apart from those listed under Option 3.3):
+ Allows dCDN to use Absolute URLs without Redirection without
having to convey sensitive information to the uCDN
- Requires high level of HAS awareness in dCDN (for modifying
manifest files)
- Requires adding HAS-specific information to the CDNI Metadata
Interface
3.4. Logging
3.4.1. HAS Considerations for CDNI Logging
As stated in [I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement], "the CDNI Logging
interface enables details of logs or events to be exchanged between
interconnected CDNs".
As discussed in [I-D.draft-bertrand-cdni-logging], the CDNI logging
information can be used fort multiple purposes including maintenance/
debugging by uCDN, accounting (e.g. in view of billing or
settlement), reporting and management of end-user experience (e.g. to
the CSP), analytics (e.g. by the CSP) and control of content
distribution policy enforcement (e.g. by the CSP).
The key consideration for HAS with respect to logging is the
potential increase of the number of Log records by two to three
orders of magnitude, as compared to regular HTTP delivery of a video,
since log records would typically be generated on a per-chunk-
delivery basis instead of per-content-item-delivery basis. This
impacts the scale of every processing step in the Logging Process
(see Section 8 of [I-D.draft-bertrand-cdni-logging]), including:
a. Logging Generation and Storing of logs on CDN elements
(Surrogate, Request Routers,..)
b. Logging Aggregation within a CDN
c. Logging Manipulation (including Logging Protection, Logging
Filtering , Logging Update and Rectification)
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
d. (Where needed) Logging CDNI Reformatting (e.g. reformatting from
CDN-specific format to the CDNI Logging Interface format for
export by dCDN to uCDN)
e. Logging exchange via CDNI Logging Interface
f. (Where needed) Logging Re-Reformatting (e.g. reformatting from
CDNI Logging Interface format into log-consuming specific
application)
g. Logging consumption/processing (e.g. feed logs into uCDN
accounting application, feed logs into uCDN reporting system to
provide per CSP views, feed logs into debugging tool to debug)
Note that there may be multiple instances of step [f] and [g] running
in parallel.
While the CDNI Logging Interface is only used to perform step [e], we
note that its format directly affects step [d] and [f] and that its
format also indirectly affects the other steps (for example if the
CDNI Logging Interface requires per-chunk log records, step [a], [b]
and [d] cannot operate on a per-HAS-session basis and also need to
operate on a per-chunk basis).
3.4.2. Candidate Approaches
The following sub-sections discusses the main candidate approaches
identified so far for CDNI in terms of dealing with HAS with respect
to Logging.
3.4.2.1. Option 4.1: "Do-Nothing" Approach
In this approach, each HAS-chunk delivery is considered, for CDNI
Logging, as a standalone content delivery. In particular, a separate
log record for each HAS-chunk delivery is included in the CDNI
Logging Interface in step [e]. This approach requires that step [a],
[b] , [c], [d] and [e] be performed on per-chunk basis. This
approach allows [g] to be performed either on a per-chunk basis
(assuming step [e] maintains per-chunk records) or on a more
"summarized" manner such as per-HAS-Session basis assuming step [e]
summarizes per-chunk records into per-HAS-session records).
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o None
Effect on uCDN and dCDN:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ No information loss (i.e. all details of each individual chunk
delivery are preserved). While this full level of detail may not
be needed for some Log consuming applications (e.g. billing), this
full level of detail is likely valuable (possibly required) for
some Log consuming applications (e.g. debugging)
+ Easier integration (at least in the short term) into existing
Logging tools since those are all capable of handling per-chunk
records
+ No extension needed on CDNI interfaces
- High volume of logging information to be handled (storing &
processing) at every step of the Logging process from [a] to [g]
(while summarization in step [f] is conceivable, it may be
difficult to achieve in practice without any hints for correlation
in the log records). While the high volume of logging information
is a potential concern, we are seeking expert input on whether it
is a real practical issue, and if yes, then in what timeframe/
assumptions.
3.4.2.2. Option 4.2: "CDNI Metadata Content Collection ID" Approach
In this approach, a "Content Collection ID" (CCID) field is
distributed through the CDNI Metadata Interface and the same CCID
value is associated with every chunk of the same Content Collection.
The objective of this field is to facilitate summarization of per-
chunk records at step [f] into something along the lines of per-HAS-
session logs, at least for the Log Consuming application that do not
require per-chunk detailed information (for example billing).
[Editor's Note: would there be value in adding a little more info in
the metadata such as which HAS-scheme is used?]
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o One additional metadata field (CCID) in CDNI Metadata Interface
Effect on uCDN and dCDN:
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
+ No information loss (i.e. all details of each individual chunk
delivery are preserved). While this full level of detail may not
be needed for some Log consuming applications (e.g. billing), this
full level of detail is likely valuable (possibly required) for
some Log consuming applications (e.g. debugging)
+ Easier integration (at least in the short term) into existing
Logging tools since those are all capable of handling per-chunk
records
+ Very minor extension to CDNI interfaces needed
+ Facilitated summarization of records related to a HAS session in
step [f] and therefore ability to operate on lower volume of
logging information in step [g] by log consuming applications that
do not need per-chunk record details (e.g. billing)
- High volume of logging information to be handled (storing &
processing) at every step of the Logging process from [a] to [f].
While the high volume of logging information is a potential
concern, we are seeking input on whether it is a real practical
issue, and if yes in what timeframe/assumptions
3.4.2.3. Option 4.3: "CDNI Metadata Content Collection ID With dCDN
Summarization" Approach
In this approach, a "Content Collection ID" (CCID) field is
distributed through the CDNI Metadata Interface and the same CCID
value is associated with every chunk of the same Content Collection.
In this approach, a summarization of per-chunk records is performed
at step [d] (or in earlier steps) taking advantage of the CCID, so
that a reduced volume of logging information is to be handled in
steps [e] to [g] of the logging process (and is optionally also
possible in steps [a] to [c]). The objective of this approach is to
reduce the volume of logging information early in the Logging process
Regarding the summarization performed at step [d] (or in earlier
steps), there is a continuum in terms of trade-off between level of
summarization of per-chunk records and information loss. For
example, it appears possible to perform a summarization that results
is significant gains with limited information loss, perhaps using
summarized logs along the lines of the Event-Based Logging format
discussed in section 3.2.2 of
[I-D.draft-lefaucheur-cdni-logging-delivery]. Alternatively, it may
be possible to perform a summarization that results in very
significant gains with significant information loss, perhaps using
summarized logs along the lines of the Summary-Based Logging format
discussed in section 3.2.3 of
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
[I-D.draft-lefaucheur-cdni-logging-delivery].
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o One additional metadata field (CCID) in CDNI Metadata Interface
o Summarized logging information in CDNI Logging Information
Effect on uCDN and dCDN:
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Lower volume of logging information to be handled (storing &
processing) at every step of the Logging process from [e] to [g],
and optionally from [a] to [d] also
+ Small extensions to CDNI interfaces needed
- Some information loss (i.e. all details of each individual chunk
delivery are not preserved). The actual information loss depends
on the summarization approach selected (typically the lower the
information loss, the lower the summarization gain) so the right
sweet-spot would had ego be selected. While full level of detail
may not be needed for some Log consuming applications (e.g.
billing), the full level of detail is likely valuable (possibly
required) for some Log consuming applications (e.g. debugging)
- Less easy integration (at least in the short term) into existing
Logging tools since those are all capable of handling per-chunk
records and may not be capable of handling CDNI summarized records
3.4.2.4. Option 4.4: "CDNI Logging Interface Compression" Approach
In this approach, a loss-less compression technique is applied to the
sets of Logging records (e.g. Logging files) for transfer on the
IETF CDNI Logging Interface. The objective of this approach is to
reduce the volume of information to be stored and transferred in step
[e].
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o One additional compression mechanism to be included in the CDNI
Logging Interface
Effect on uCDN and dCDN:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ No information loss (i.e. all details of each individual chunk
delivery are preserved). While this full level of detail may not
be needed for some Log consuming applications (e.g. billing), this
full level of detail is likely valuable (possibly required) for
some Log consuming applications (e.g. debugging)
+ Easier integration (at least in the short term) into existing
Logging tools since those are all capable of handling per-chunk
records
+ Small extension to CDNI interfaces needed
+ Reduced volume of logging information in step [e]
- High volume of logging information to be handled (storing &
processing) at every step of the Logging process from [a] to [g],
except [e]. While the high volume of logging information is a
potential concern, we are seeking expert input on whether it is a
real practical issue, and if yes, then in what timeframe/
assumptions
Input is sought on expected compression gains achievable in practice
over sets of logs containing per-chunk records.
3.4.2.5. Option 4.5: "Full HAS awareness" Approach
In this approach, HAS-awareness is assumed across the CDNs
interconnected via CDNI and the necessary information to describe the
HAS relationship across all chunks of the same Content Collection is
distributed through the CDNI Metadata Interface. In this approach,
the dCDN Surrogates leverage the HAS information distributed through
the CDNI metadata and their HAS-awareness to generate summarized
logging information in the very first place. The objective of that
approach is to operate on lower volume of logging information right
from the very first step of the Logging process.
The summarized HAS logs generated by the Surrogates in this approach
are similar to those discussed in the section " "CDNI Metadata
Content Collection ID With dCDN Summarization" Approach" and the same
trade-offs between information loss and summarization gain apply.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
o One significant extension of the CDNI Metadata Interface to convey
HAS relationship across chunks of a Content Collection. Note that
this extension requires specific support for every HAS-protocol to
be supported over the CDNI mesh
Effect on uCDN and dCDN:
o Full HAS-awareness by dCDN Surrogates
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Lower volume of logging information to be handled (storing &
processing) at every step of the Logging process from [a] to [g]
+ Accurate generation of summarized logs because of HAS awareness on
Surrogate
- Very significant extensions to CDNI interfaces needed including
per HAS-protocol specific support
- Very significant additional requirement for HAS awareness on dCDN
- Some information loss (i.e. all details of each individual chunk
delivery are not preserved). The actual information loss depends
on the summarization approach selected (typically the lower the
information loss, the lower the summarization gain) so the right
sweet-spot would had ego be selected. While full level of detail
may not be needed for some Log consuming applications (e.g.
billing), the full level of detail is likely valuable (possibly
required) for some Log consuming applications (e.g. debugging)
- Less easy integration (at least in the short term) into existing
Logging tools since those are all capable of handling per-chunk
records and may not be capable of handling CDNI summarized records
Input is sought on expected compression gains achievable in practice
over sets of logs containing per-chunk records.
3.5. URL Signing
URL Signing is an authorization method for content delivery. This is
based on embedding the HTTP URL with information that can be
validated to ensure the request has legitimate access to the content.
There are two parts: 1) parameters that convey authorization
restrictions (e.g. source IP address and time period) and/or
protected URL portion, and 2) authenticator value that confirms the
integrity of the URL and authenticates the URL creator. The
authorization parameters can be anything agreed upon between the
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
entity that creates the URL and the entity that validates the URL. A
key is used to generate the authenticator (i.e. sign the URL) and
validate the authenticator. This may or may not be the same key.
There are two types of keys: asymmetric keys and symmetric key.
Asymmetric keys always have a key pair made up of a public key and
private key. The private key and public key are used for signing and
validating the URL, respectively. A symmetric key is the same key
that is used for both functions. Regardless of the type of key, the
entity that validates the URL has obtain the key. Distribution for
the symmetric key requires security to prevent others from taking it.
Public key can be distributed freely while private key is kept by the
URL signer.
URL Signing operates in the following way. A signed URL is provided
by the content owner (i.e. URL signer) to the user during website
navigation. When the user selects the URL, the HTTP request is sent
to the delivery node which validates that the URL before delivering
the content.
3.5.1. URL Signing in CDNI
For CDNI, URL Signing is based on the Upstream CDN and Downstream CDN
as entities that sign and validate the URL, respectively. HTTP-based
request routing changes the URL. Thus, each redirection requires the
URL to be re-signed. The alternative is protection of only the
invariant portion of the URL to avoid re-signing by the transit CDN.
DNS-based request routing maintains the same URL. In essence, there
are three cases: 1) The URL is validated, rewritten, and re-signed at
each request routing hop, 2) The URL is changed but only the
invariant portion of URL is validated, and 3) The URL remains the
same and validated by the delivery CDN surrogate.
The Downstream CDN needs to obtain the key for validating the URL.
When asymmetric keys are used, the public key can be retrieved from
the authorization parameters embedded in the URL. The Downstream CDN
can validate the URL with the public key, regardless of the
relationship with the URL signer (i.e. Downstream CDN has or does
not have a direct relationship with the Upstream CDN that signed the
URL). When symmetric key is used, the Downstream CDN needs to obtain
the key in a secure method that is out of scope. For cascaded CDNs,
a common key is distributed for validation of unaltered URL to
support DNS-based request routing. Alternatively, a shared key is
distributed between adjacent CDNs to support rewritten URL that is
used in HTTP-based request routing.
URL Signing requires support in most of the CDNI Interfaces. The
CDNI Metadata interface should specify the content that is subject to
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
URL signing and provide information to perform the function. The
Downstream CDN should inform the Upstream CDN that it supports URL
Signing in the asynchronous capabilities information advertisement as
part of the Request Routing interface. This allows the CDN selection
function in request routing to choose the Downstream CDN with URL
signing capability when the CDNI metadata of the content requires
this authorization method. The Logging interface provides
information on the authorization method (e.g. URL Signing) and
related authorization parameters used for content delivery. URL
Signing has no impact on the Control interface.
3.5.2. Option 5.1: No HAS awareness
For HTTP Adaptive Streaming, the Manifest File contains the Relative
Locator, Absolute Locator without Redirection, or Absolute Locator
with Redirection for specifying the chunk location. The
Authoritative CDN performs URL signing for the Manifest File and
chunks. The delivery CDN surrogate has to obtain the key to validate
the URL. Although the Manifest file and chunk are treated the same
by the CDN that is not HAS aware, there are some implications for URL
Signing based on the method used to reference the chunk location in
the Manifest file.
For Absolute URL without Redirection, the Authoritative CDN signs the
chunk URL which is associated with the delivery CDN surrogate. Since
the entire URL is set and does not change during request routing
(i.e. DNS-based redirection only and no HTTP-based redirection),
there are no issues for signing and validating the URL.
For Relative URL, the Authoritative CDN does not know the URL that
will be ultimately used by a Downstream CDN to deliver the chunk.
This uncertainty makes it impossible to accurately sign the URL in
the Manifest File. URL Basically, URL Signing using this reference
method, "as is" for entire URL protection, is not supported.
However, instead of signing the entire URL, the Authoritative CDN
signs the Relative URL (i.e. invariant portion of the URL) and
conveys the protected portion in the authorization parameters
embedded in the chunk URL. This approach works the same way as
Absolute URL, except the HOST part and (part of) the PATH part of the
URL are not signed and validated. The tradeoff is flexibility vs
security. The advantage is that the content can be authorized to be
delivered from any host with arbitrary directory path. The drawback
is lack of protection for the entire URL. One aspect may outweigh
the other depending on the needs of the Authoritative CDN.
For Absolute URL with Redirection, the Authoritative CDN signs the
chunk URL with the intent that the targeted Request Routing function
will validate and redirect the URL with a new URL signature. This
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
method is same as the Absolute URL without Redirection from URL
Signing perspective because the signed URL is the same URL that is
validated. Only difference is that the request routing function
needs to redirect the request with a new URL which may be signed or
not.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o oURL Signing is enabled on the CDNI Request Routing (i.e.
Capabilities advertisement), Metadata, and Logging interfaces
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ No HAS awareness necessary in CDNs, no changes to CDNI interface
necessary
- URL Signing for every chunk may be considered as processing
overhead
3.5.3. Option 5.2: HAS-awareness with Authorization Token
Up to this point, the Manifest File and chunks are treated as normal
file in the HTTP delivery. There are no specific changes needed for
the CDN to support HAS. However, if CDN is aware of HAS, then the
Manifest File and chunk can be treated differently and appropriately.
URL Signing is fundamentally about authorizing access to a Content
Item or its specific Content Collections (representations) for a
specific user during a time period with possibly some other criteria.
A chunk is an instance of the sets of chunks referenced by the
Manifest File for the Content Item or its specific Content
Collections. This relationship means that once the Downstream CDN
has authorized the Manifest File, it can assume that the associated
chunks are implicitly authorized. The new function for the CDN is to
link the Manifest File with the chunks for the HTTP session. This
can be accomplished by using authorization token or session based
encryption. This section covers the former and next section covers
the latter.
After validating the URL and detecting that the requested content is
a Manifest File, the delivery CDN surrogate creates a state and sets
a HTTP cookie with authorization token for the HTTP session. When a
request for a chunk arrives, the surrogate confirms that the HTTP
cookie value contains the correct authorization token. If so, the
chunk is delivered due to transitive authorization property.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
o URL Signing is enabled on the CDNI Request Routing (i.e.
Capabilities advertisement), Metadata, and Logging interfaces
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Not necessary to validate every chunk URL
+ Less exposure to attacks on the URL Signing keys
- Surrogate needs to maintain state for the authorization token
3.5.4. Option 5.3: HAS-awareness with Session Based Encryption
After validating the URL and detecting that the requested content is
a Manifest File, the delivery CDN surrogate manipulates the Manifest
File by adding a reference to the key server for protection of
specific chunks before it delivers the content. Also, the surrogate
sets a HTTP cookie for the HTTP session. When a request for a chunk
arrives, the surrogate identifies that the HTTP cookie value is for
the same session. If so, the chunk is encrypted with the symmetric
key obtained from the key server and then is delivered to the user.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o URL Signing is enabled on the CDNI Request Routing (i.e.
Capabilities advertisement), Metadata, and Logging interfaces
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Not necessary to validate every chunk URL
+ Less exposure to attacks on the URL Signing keys
+ Confidentiality for the chunk
- Surrogate needs to change the Manifest File
- Surrogate needs to maintain state for the HTTP session
- Key server is required to distribute key to surrogate and user
- Encryption and decryption processing
3.6. Content Purge
At some point in time, a uCDN might want to remove content from a
dCDN. With regular content, this process can be relatively
straightforward; a uCDN will typically send the request for content
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
removal to the dCDN including a reference to the content which it
wants to remove (e.g. in the form of a URL). Due to the fact that
HAS content consists of large groups of files however, things might
be more complex. Section 3.1 describes a number of different
scenarios for doing file management on these groups of files, while
Section 3.2 list the options for performing Content Acquisition on
these Content Collections. This section will present the options for
requesting a Content Purge for the removal of a Content Collection
from a dCDN.
3.6.1. Option 6.1: No HAS awareness
The most straightforward way to signal content purge requests is to
just send a single purge request for every file that makes up the
Content Collection. While this method is very simple and does not
require HAS awareness, it obviously creates a large signalling
overhead between the uCDN and dCDN.
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o None
Advantages/Drawbacks (apart from those listed under Option 3.3):
+ Does not require changes to the CDNI Interfaces or HAS awareness
- Requires individual purge request for every file making up a
Content Collection which creates large signalling overhead
3.6.2. Option 6.2: Purge Identifiers
There exists a potentially more efficient method for performing
content removal of large numbers of files simultaneously. By
including purge identifiers in the metadata of a particular file, it
is possible to virtually group together different files making up a
Content Collection. A purge identifier can take the form of a random
number which is communicated as part of the CDNI Metadata Interface
and which is the same for all files making up a particular Content
Item. If a uCDN wants to request the dCDN to remove a Content
Collection, it can send a purge request containing this purge
identifier. The dCDN can then remove all files that contain the
shared identifier.
The advantage of this method is that it is relatively simple to use
by both the dCDN and uCDN and requiring only limited additions to the
CDNI Metadata Interface and CDNI Control Interface.
[Editor's Note: Could the Purge Identifier introduced in this section
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
be related to the Content Collection Identifier introduced in
Section 3.4.2.2? Chould they be the same identifier?]
Effect on CDN Interfaces:
o CDNI Metadata Interface: Add metadata field for indicating Purge
Identifier
o CDNI Control Interface: Add functionality to be able to send
content purge requests containing Purge Identifiers
Advantages/Drawbacks:
+ Allows for efficient purging of content from a dCDN
+ Does not require HAS awareness on part of dCDN
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-cdni-problem-statement]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement, draft-ietf-cdni-problem-statement-03",
January 2012.
[I-D.ietf-cdni-use-cases]
Bertrand, G., Ed., Stephan, E., Watson, G., Burbridge, T.,
Eardley, P., and K. Ma, "Use Cases for Content Delivery
Network Interconnection, draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases-03",
January 2012.
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-bertrand-cdni-logging]
Bertrand, G., Ed. and E. Stephan, "CDNI Logging
Interface".
[I-D.draft-lefaucheur-cdni-logging-delivery]
Le Faucheur, F., Viveganandhan, M., and K. Leung, "CDNI
Logging Formats for HTTP and HTTP Adaptive Streaming
Deliveries".
Authors' Addresses
Ray van Brandenburg
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
the Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
Email: ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl
Oskar van Deventer
TNO
Brassersplein 2
Delft 2612CT
the Netherlands
Phone: +31-88-866-7000
Email: oskar.vandeventer@tno.nl
Francois Le Faucheur
Cisco Systems
Greenside, 400 Avenue de Roumanille
Sophia Antipolis 06410
France
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft HTTP Adaptive streaming and CDNI May 2012
Kent Leung
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Phone: +1 408-526-5030
Email: kleung@cisco.com
van Brandenburg, et al. Expires November 23, 2012 [Page 32]