PPSP Y.Zhang
Internet Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational N.Zong
HuaweiTech
G.Camarillo
Ericsson
J.seng
PPlive
R.Yang
Yale University
July 4, 2011
Expires: January 2012
Problem Statement of P2P Streaming Protocol (PPSP)
draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10,
2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully,
as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this
document. Code Components extracted from this document must include
Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust
Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in
the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
P2P streaming systems show more and more popularity in current
Internet with proprietary protocols. This document identifies
problems of the proprietary protocols, proposes standard signaling
protocols called PPSP and discusses the scope and use cases of PPSP.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Conventions used in this document............................ 5
3. Problem statement ........................................... 6
3.1. Difficulties for ISP in deploying P2P caches ........... 6
3.2. Difficult interactionies in building open streaming delivery
infrastructure .............................................. 6
3.3. Difficulties with in mobile and wireless environment.....7
3.4. Difficulties for resource-constraint tTerminals to run
different daemons at the same time........................... 8
4. PPSP:Standard peer to peer streaming protocols ...............9
5. Use cases of PPSP .......................................... 12
5.1. Worldwide provision of open P2P live streaming services.12
5.2. CDN supporting P2P streaming........................... 13
5.3. PPSP supporting cross-screen streaming in heterogeneous
environment ................................................ 14
5.4. Supporting P2P streaming in cellular mobile network.....14
5.5. Cache service supporting P2P streaming .................15
6. Security Considerations..................................... 17
6.1. Tracker Protocol....................................... 17
6.2. Peer Protocol ......................................... 17
7. References ................................................. 18
8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 20
1. Introduction
Streaming traffic is among the fastest growing traffic on the
Internet. As Cisco Visual Network Traffic index measured, video
streaming already generates the largest volume of Internet traffic in
the year of 2010, and the percentage is expected to rise to as high
as 91% of the total Internet traffic by 2014[Cisco].
There are two basic architectures for delivering streaming traffic on
the Internet: the client-server paradigm and the peer to peer (P2P)
paradigm [Survey].The basic advantage of the P2P paradigm is its
scalability and fault tolerance against failures of centralized
infrastructures. As an example, PPLive [PPLive], one of the largest
P2P streaming vendors, is able to distribute large-scale, live
streaming programs such as the CCTV Spring Festival Gala to more than
3 million users with only a handful of servers. It can also deliver
VoD streaming to a scale of some hundred of thousands simultaneous
users using the same structure and similar protocols[VoD]. The effect
of P2P technologies is also well demonstrated in delivering real and
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
VoD streaming effectively in current practice like CNN [CNN] PPstream
[PPstream],UUSee [UUSee]and CNTV[CNTV]. The latest release of Adobe
Flash, a major platform of streaming distribution in the Internet,
has also introduced Cirrus [Cirrus], a peer assisted data exchange
mode.
What's more, along with the new players like CDN vendors (e.g.,Akamai
[Akamai], ChinaCache[ChinaCache]) and ISPs(e.g., ComCast
[ComCast])joining in the effort of using P2P streaming delivery in
providing their content, the P2P streaming ecosystem is becoming more
complex with diverse players varying from the source, infrastructure
side, edge delivery side even to the heterogeneous kinds of terminals.
Given the increasing integration of P2P streaming into the global
content delivery infrastructure, the lacking of an open, standard P2P
streaming signaling protocol suite becomes a major missing component
in the protocol stack. Almost all these systems use their proprietary
signaling protocols. Multiple, similar but proprietary signaling
protocols result in repetitious development efforts for new systems,
and the lock-in effects lead to substantial difficulties in their
integration. For example, in the enhancement of existing caches and
CDN systems to support P2P streaming, the open protocols will
dynamically reduce the complexity of the interaction with different
P2P streaming applications.
In this document we propose an open P2P streaming protocol named PPSP,
to standardize signaling operations on two important components, peer
and tracker in P2P streaming systems for information exchange. The
problems of proprietary signaling protocols and benefit of PPSP are
explained further in section 3.
PPSP will serve as an enabling technology, building on the
development experiences of existing P2P streaming systems. Its design
will allow it to integrate with IETF protocols on distributed
resource location, traffic localization, and streaming control and
data transfer mechanisms for building a complete streaming system or
updating /integrating existing cache/CDN/routers to support P2P
streaming delivery.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
2. Conventions used in this document
Chunk: A chunk is a basic unit of partitioned streaming. Peers may
use a chunk as a unit of storage, advertisement and exchange among
peers [VoD]. Note that a streaming system may use different units for
advertisement and data exchange, using chunks during data exchange,
and a larger unit such as a set of chunks during advertisement.
Content Distribution Network (CDN): A CDN node refers to a network
entity that is deployed in the network (e.g., at the network edge or
data centers) to store content provided by the original servers, and
serves content to the clients located nearby topologically.
Live streaming: It refers to a scenario where all clients receive
streaming content for the same ongoing event. It is desired that the
lags between the play points of the clients and that of the streaming
source be small.
P2P cache: A P2P cache refers to a network entity that caches P2P
traffic in the network, and either transparently or explicitly as a
peer distributes content to other peers.
Peer: A peer refers to a participant in a P2P streaming system that
not only receives streaming content, but also stores and uploads
streaming content to other participants.
PPSP: The abbreviation of P2P streaming protocols. PPSP refer to the
key signaling protocols among various P2P streaming system components,
including the tracker and the peer.
Swarm: A swarm refers to a group of clients (i.e., peers) who exchang
data to distribute the same content (e.g. video/audio program,
digital file, etc) at a given time.
Tracker: A tracker refers to a directory server which maintains a
list of peers storing chunks for a specific channel or streaming file,
and answers queries from peers for peer lists. The tracker is a logic
component which can be centralized or distributed.
Video-on-demand (VoD): It refers to a scenario where different
clients may watch different parts of the same recorded media content
during a past event.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
3. Problem statement
The problems brought by proprietary signaling for P2P streaming
applications are listed as follows.
3.1. Difficulties for ISP in deploying P2P caches
Facing with many P2P streaming applications, ISPs are witnessing a
big traffic tension on their backbone and inter-networking ports.P2P
cache is used to reduce the traffic by dynamically storing the
frequently accessed streaming content (maybe in chunk or in file
granularity). However, the cache nodes need to execute DPI (deep
packet inspection) for identifying different P2P streaming systems.
Multiple ever changing proprietary P2P streaming protocols require
the P2P cache updating its matching library constantly which
increases the operator's cost dramatically.
With PPSP, P2P cache can detect P2P streaming applications much
easier without needing to update its library. This reduces the ISP
workload to a large extent. Note that using standard PPSP won't hurt
current P2P streaming vendors : Firstly, the openness of signaling
interactions makes it easy to integrate them with ISP's caches for
better user experience, say, smaller delay of the play. Secondly, the
variation in different P2P streaming systems mainly lies in how the
chunks are scheduled to transfer rather than how the chunks
availability information is exchanged. The latter is the core of PPSP,
which is easiest to be open.
3.2. Difficult interactionies in building open streaming delivery
infrastructure
The future Internet is content-centric [CCN][DONA]because the vast
majority of current Internet usage (a "high 90% level of
traffic"[Van]) consists of data. Most of the content-centric works
are seeking for building an open global content delivery
infrastructure,where P2P streaming data delivery is going to account
for a large portion. However if current multiple proprietary
protocols continue to work, there will exist lots of specific and
independent systems to deliver vast of same streaming content. This
brings more burdens for identifying and sharing the same contents,
increases the storage, forwarding and maintenance cost in the
intermediate nodes for repeated content. This will definitely
increase the cost of streaming distribution and causes possible
congestion in the network.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
Consider a case where source vendors cooperate with 3rd party CDN.
Such integration is already practiced by UUSee[UUSee], RayV[RayV] and
Forcetech[Forcetech]. The effect has been verified to improve the
total performance of P2P streaming (e.g., with lower latency) by
providing more stable "super peers" and reduce traffic for ISP
[CDN+P2P] [RFC 5693].However, there are substantial obstacles for CDN
nodes supporting proprietary P2P streaming protocols [HTPT]. Unlike
the Web where all kinds of the infrastructure devices have been
already equipped with standard HTTP protocol,an open CDN supporting
various P2P streaming applications need to understand and keep
updated on various protocols. Similar to the cache case, this
introduces complexity and deployment cost.
With PPSP, CDN nodes can be designed to inter-operate with other
devices by only standard protocols, reducing the case by case
negotiation between the source providers and CDN providers. Note
again that we just focus on the standard data availability
information interaction between tracker (maybe hosted by the source
provider) and CDN nodes, among CDN nodes. The scheduling of data
among CDN nodes keeps intact. The interaction between CDN nodes and
user peers can be either client/server communication using HTTP or
peer to peer communication using PPSP.
3.3. Difficulties with in mobile and wireless environment
Mobility and wireless are becoming increasingly important features in
future Internet deployments [GENI], [FIND]. It is predicted that by
the end of 2012, the number of mobile Internet users will surpass
that of fixed Internet users in China [Statistics]. Mobile streaming
has becoming a key offering [MobileTV]. In Korea the number of mobile
TV subscriber has reached seventeen millions, accounting for one
third of the mobile subscribers. During the 2008 Beijing Olympic
Games, more than one million users enjoyed mobile TV service. There
are more and more studies exploring P2P streaming in mobile and
wireless networks[Mobile Streaming1] [Mobile Streaming2]
However it's difficult to copy current P2P streaming protocols in
mobile and wireless networks. Current protocols are designed mainly
for fixed Internet. Although smart handsets are more eligible to be
peers with much better bandwidth and higher CPU frequency, larger
storage and memory than before, peer selection is more challenging
which needs more information to exchange during the tracker/peer and
peer/peer communications: First, in mobile and wireless networks, the
connections are unsteady, lower and costly(esp. in uplink). The
trackers and peers need more information, compared to fixed Internet,
like packet loss rate, peer battery status and processing capability
for peer selection. Note that not all mobile nodes are eligible to be
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
peers. The new-added information should help the tracker/peer to make
the decision. Second, current practices often use a "bitmap" message
to exchange chunk availability among peers/trackers. The message is
often of some kilobytes size and relatively frequent to exchange. In
the mobile networks, the bandwidth is scarce and a reasonable
optimization is to reduce the message size, which maybe requires a
new expression on "bitmap". Third, mobility issue. If a peer is
moving from one serving gateway (e.g., GGSN) to another, the IP
address will be changed. It may affect the on-going connection and
transmission between peers. Therefore such information should be
reported in time, which is not addressed in current practices.
PPSP should investigate these factors for a practical converged
network from the beginning of the design.
3.4. Difficulties for resource-constraint tTerminals to run different
daemons at the same time
Private protocols may require a terminal to install multiple software
at the same time. For example a user installs CBox for CCTV programs
[CNTV], and PPLive for Japanese and Korean movies [PPLive]. However
it may be difficult to install multiple clients in one resource
constraint peer like mobile handsets. The limited CPU, storage and
memory often limit the total number of installed applications as well
as concurrent threads and processes. Note that for many client
software, even it's not used by the users right now, the daemon may
be invoked to facilitate other peers for free data delivery
assistance. Taking storage for example, according to
[PPStream][UUSee][PPLive Design], the buffer of each peer's hard disk
contributed to the system is at least 1GB. If each mobile peer, like
iPhone (version 1) runs 2 such applications at the same time, the
storage cannot be shared for different applications and it will
consume one fourth of all its storage (8 GB), leaving other data with
fewer storage.
With PPSP,there is possibility to use one client software to support
different applications because the peers can communicate with
different trackers/peers with the same protocols and shared
buffer( memory and storage). Thus even using different applications
at the same time, resource constraint dilemma is largely reduced. The
only distinction for different applications lie in different plug-ins
(e.g., scheduling algorithms).
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
4. PPSP:Standard peer to peer streaming protocols
The objective of this working group is to design PPSP, unified peer
to peer streaming protocols to address the problems discussed in the
preceding section.
There are basically two kinds of P2P streaming systems, pull-based
and push-based. In pull-based P2P streaming systems, a centralized
tracker or distributed trackers maintains information about which
peers are in which swarms and answers the peers' query on such
information with a peer-list. After receiving the message, the peer
can connect with the candidates in a swarm, exchange its content
availability in its memory or storage (depending on it's real-time or
VoD streaming) with other peers and then retrieve for wanted
streaming data. The swarm is a mesh topology. Most of the current
practices are belonging to this genre. The advantages of pull-based
mode are its robustness to the peer churn and acceptable latency for
a smooth play. On the other hand, in push-based P2P streaming
systems, there is a head node maintaining the topology e.g., a tree.
The peers in this topology share the same interest on content. The
signaling and data distribution are both based on this topology. For
one program or video file, the peer queries the head node for its
location to join and the head node replies with a peer-list(maybe
with recommended order). After receiving this peer-list, the peer can
connect with the candidates for being a node in certain place of the
topology and receive the data along this topology without the need of
exchanging content availability with its siblings. In this sense the
head node is acting as the tracker. The push mode has the advantages
of lower latency but the topology is fragile to the peer churn. Few
practical systems use this mode. A more practical mode is a hybrid
pull-push mode where the peers exchange content availability with its
siblings for retrieving unfounded data.
To sum up, in essence, there are two important entities in P2P
streaming, i.e., trackers and peers in P2P streaming systems. PPSP is
targeted to standardize the signaling protocols in this tracker-based
architectures for supporting both live and VoD streaming.
In live streaming, all peers are interested in the media coming from
an ongoing event, which means that all peers share nearly the same
streaming content at a given point of time. In live streaming, some
peers may store the live media for further distribution, which is
known as TSTV (time-shift TV), where the stored media are separated
into chunks and distributed in a VoD-like manner.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
In VoD, different peers watch different parts of the recorded media
content during a past event. In this case, each peer keeps asking
other peers which media chunks are stored in which peers, and then
gets the required media from certain/selected peers.
In detail, PPSP designs a protocol for signaling between trackers and
peers (the PPSP "tracker protocol") and a signaling protocol for
communication among the peers (the PPSP "peer protocol") as shown in
Figure 1. The two protocols enable peers to receive streaming data
within the time constraints required by specific content items. The
tracker protocol handles the initial and periodic exchange of meta
information between trackers and peers, such as peer-list and content
information. The peer protocol controls the advertising and exchange
of media data between the peers.
Note that in the pull mode and hybrid pull-push mode, both tracker
protocol and peer protocol can be used; while in the push mode, only
tracker protocol is used.
What's more, existing protocols should be investigated and evaluated
for being reused or extended as the proposed protocols, e.g., HTTP.
Considering that there can be a large number of peers, the protocol
should consider some lightweight (possibly binary) encoding.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
+------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +--------------------------------+ |
| | Tracker(Head Node) | |
| +--------------------------------+ |
| | ^ ^ |
|Tracker | | Tracker |Tracker |
|Protocol| | Procotol |Protocol |
| | | | |
| V | | |
| +---------+ Peer +---------+ |
| | Peer |<----------->| Peer | |
| +---------+ Protocol +---------+ |
| | ^ |
| | |Peer |
| | |Protocol |
| V | |
| +---------------+ |
| | Peer | |
| +---------------+ |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 PPSP System Architecture
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
5. Use cases of PPSP
5.1. Worldwide provision of open P2P live streaming services
The cooperative vendors can easily expand the broadcasting scale with
PPSP. In figure 2 shows the case that vendor A broadcasts the program
with the help of vendor B and vendor C for a wider coverage. The
interactions between vendor A's tracker and vendor B and vendor C's
super-nodes (SN in short) can be normalized using tracker protocol;
and peer protocol can be used among SNs/peers spread in different
vendors.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +------------------+ |
| +------------>| A's Tracker |<----------+ |
| | +------------------+ | |
| Tracker| ^ ^ | |
| Protocol| Tracker| |Tracker |Tracker |
| | Protocol| |Protocol |Protocol |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| v v v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ +------+ +------+ |
| | B's |<------->| B's | | C's | | C's | |
| | SN1 |Protocol | SN2 | | SN1 | | SN2 | |
| +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ |
| ^ ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | | |
| | | Peer Protocol Peer Protocol| | |
| Peer | +-------------+ +--------------+ |Peer |
| Procotol| | | |protocol|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| v v v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ +---------+ Peer +---------+ |
| | A's |<------> | B's | |A's |<------> |C's | |
| | User1|Protocol | User2| | User1 |Protocol | User2 | |
| +------+ +------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Cooperative Vendors Interactions
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
5.2. CDN supporting P2P streaming
This scenario is similar to use case 1 except that the intermediate
SNs are replaced by 3rd party CDN surrogates with PPSP. The P2P
streaming vendors A and B can rent CDN surrogates to provide higher
QoS services for VIP users than services provides by only ordinary
peers. The interactions among these network entities are shown in
Figure 3. The CDN nodes talk with the different trackers and peers
with the uniform Tracker and peer protocols. Also it can talk with
peers with HTTP if it has complete copy of the requested file. The
internal interaction of CDN nodes can be executed by either original
internal protocol or new peer protocol. The latter is used when
building a new CDN system supporting streaming applications with low
cost deploying P2P delivery inside the network.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| +-------------+ +--------------+ |
| +----->| A's Tracker | | B's Tracker |<--+ |
| | +-------------+ +--------------+ | |
| Tracker| ^ ^ ^ ^ | |
| Protocol| Tracker| |Tracker | |Tracker |Tracker |
| | Protocol| |Protocol| |Protocol |Protocol |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| v v | | v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ | | +------+Internal+------+ |
| | CDN |<------->| CDN | | | | CDN |<------>| CDN | |
| | Node1|Protocol | Node2| | | | Node3|Protocol| Node4| |
| +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ |
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| | | Peer Protocol | | HTTP | | |
| Peer | +-------------+ | | +------+ | Peer |
| Procotol| | | | | Protocol |protocol|
| | | +--+ | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| v v v v v v |
| +------+ Peer +------+ +---------+ Peer +---------+ |
| | A's |<------> | A's | |B's |<------> |B's | |
| | User1|Protocol | User2| | User3 |Protocol | User4 | |
| +------+ +------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3 CDN Supporting P2P Streaming
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
5.3. PPSP supporting cross-screen streaming in heterogeneous environment
In this scenario PC, Setbox/TV and mobile terminals from both fixed
network and mobile network share the content they store/cache. Peers
from heterogeneous networks
With PPSP Peers can identify the types of networks, their load
/congestion information, peer abilities and get to know what content
other peers have (maybe with the conversion of the content
availability expression in different networks) even in different
network conditions as shown in Figure 4. These information will play
an important role on selecting suitable peers, e.g., a PC or STB node
is more likely to be selected to provide stable content for mobile
nodes; a mobile peer within a high-load base station is unlikely to
be selected, which will lead to higher load on the base station.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Tracker Protocol +---------+ Tracker Protocol |
| +-------------> | Tracker |<------------------+ |
| | +---------+ | |
| | ^ | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| V | V |
| +------+ | +------------+ |
| | STB | Tracker Protocol |Mobile Phone| |
| +------+ | +------------+ |
| ^ | ^ |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | V | |
| |Peer Protocol +---------+ Peer Protocol | |
| +-------------> | PC |<------------------+ |
| +---------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4 Heterogeneous P2P Streaming Interactions with PPSP
5.4. Supporting P2P streaming in cellular mobile network
In a cellular mobile environment like 3G or 4G, with the increase in
bandwidth and smart mobile terminal capabilities, P2P (including P2P
streaming) is easier to be realized than before. In a provincial
network of China Mobile, P2P has accounted for more than 30
percentage of the traffic, ranked second except HTTP.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
Note that the mobile terminals are not compulsorily to be peers.
Network peers who are deployed by the ISPs or operators and mobile
peers with WiFi connections are more likely to be selected. For
example, in 3GPP, there is a P2P CDS work item working on the
requirement of mobile operators to prefer use deployed network-side
equipments (e.g., serving gateways or GGSNs, one access point from
cellular mobile network to the Internet) to act as super-peers when
there are no enough eligible peers to realize P2P streaming[P2P CDS].
Because they are deployed by the operators, the stability and storage
size are better guaranteed than ordinary peers.
Similar with case 5.3, PPSP tracker protocol will help to identify
and return the super-peers in the peer-list with preference. If
mobile terminals are not eligible to be peers, they can simply
receive data from these super-peers without contributing any data to
others.
5.5. Cache service supporting P2P streaming
As discussed in the section3, deploying cache nodes in the network
edges can greatly decrease the inter-network traffic and increase
user experience in streaming service.
With PPSP, the cache nodes can identify the P2P streaming genre even
it may include different applications. When a peer requests the
streaming data, cache detects the request and requests the frequent
visited content (or part of) to the original tracker as a normal peer.
The tracker replies with (outward) peers. After the cache connectes
with the peers, it can report what it cache to the provider's tracker
like a normal peer and serve other requesting peers inside to reduce
the cross-ISP traffic as shown in Figure 5. The cache nodes needn't
update their library when new applications supporting PPSP are
introduced, which enable the cache nodes spend less cost to support
more applications.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| 0:Tracker Protocol +-----------+ |
| +------------------>| Tracker | |
| | +-----------+ |
| | ^ |
| | | |
| | 2:| Tracker Protocol |
| | | |
| | +----------|------------------------------|
| | | v |
| | | +----------+ |
| | +---------|---->| Cache |<----------------+ |
| | | | +----------+ 1,4:Tracler/Peer| |
| | | | Protcol | |
| | | | | |
| | |3:Peer | | |
| | |Protocol | | |
| | | | | |
| v v | +-----------+|
| +-------------+ | ISP Domain | Inside ||
| | Outward | | | Peer ||
| | Peer | | +-----------+|
| +-------------+ | |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5 Cache Service Supporting Streaming with PPSP
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
6. Security Considerations
PPSP will not attempt to provide a solution on security and copyright
issues like malicious content distribution, content pollution and DRM
for a general P2P streaming system. Instead PPSP security involves
the security problems related to PPSP protocols. The protocol
documents will contain a complete description on the security/privacy
issues relevant to any usage of PPSP.
6.1. Tracker Protocol
Malicious peers may issue denial of service attack to the trackers by
sending large amount of requests with tracker protocol. Distributed
trackers deployment may alleviate the problem.
On the other hand, malicious peers may report fake information (e.g.,
cheating trackers and other peers by claiming itself owning some un-
existing data).
So it may be optional to realize authentication to the peers before
accepting the request for the tracker. But this may add up the
tracker's workload.
In the above discussion tracker is trustful. Things are worse when
the malicious peer acts as part of the distributed trackers. The
malicious acting tracker may reply the peers with fake peer-list.
Peers may find they cannot find desired data with the fake peer-list.
6.2. Peer Protocol
Similar to the behavior in the tracker-peer interaction, malicious
peers may also create fake information on chunk availability and
exchange it with other peers. Some techniques to check the data
integrity (e.g., using checksum) may be useful for detecting the data.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
7. References
[Cisco] Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology,
2009-2014,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns7
05/ns827/white_paper_c11-
481360_ns827_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.html
[PPLive] www.pplive.com
[VoD]Challenges, Design and Analysis of a Large-scale P2P-VoD
System,Yan Huang et al, Sigcomm08.
[CNN] www.cnn.com
[PPStream] www.ppstream.com
[UUSee] www.uusee.com
[CNTV] www.cntv.com
[Cirrus] labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/
[Akamai] Understanding hybrid CDN-P2P: why limelight needs its own
Red Swoosh, C. Huang et al,Proceedings of the 18th International
Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio
and Video, May 28-30, 2008, Braunschweig, Germany.
[ChinaCache]www.chinacache.com
[ComCast]http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2008/05/20/comcast
_invests_in_p2p_streaming_startup
[CCN] Content-Centric Networking,V. Jacobson,
https://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/2634//=1.vj.isoc.mar10.pd
f
[DONA]A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network Architecture, T. Koponen
et al, Sigcomm 2007.
[Van] A New Way to Look at Networking,Van Jacobson,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840
[RayV]www.rayv.com
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
[Forcetech]http://www.forcetech.net/english/solutions
[CDN+P2P]Efficient Large-scale Content Distribution with Combination
of CDN and P2P Networks, H. Jiang et al, International Journal of
Hybrid Information Technology, Vol.2, No.2, April, 2009.
[RFC 5693], Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem
Statement, E. Marocco et al, http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5693/
[HPTP] HPTP: Relieving the Tension between ISPs and P2P, Guobin Shen
et al, IPTPS 2007.
[GENI] www.geni.net
[FIND]www.nets-find.net
[Statistics] http://labs.chinamobile.com/news/48283
[P2P CDS] 3GPP TR 22.906, Study on IMS based peer-to-peer content
distribution services,http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-
info/22906.htm
[Mobile Streaming1] Streaming To Mobile Users In A Peer-to-Peer
Network,Jeonghun Noh et al,MOBIMEDIA '09.
[Mobile Streaming2] A real-time peer-to-peer streaming system for
mobile networking environment,J. Peltotalo et al., "" in Proceedings
of the INFOCOM and Workshop on Mobile Video Delivery (MoVID '09),
April 2009.
[PPLive Design] Challenges, design and analysis of a large-scale p2p-
vod system, Y. Huang, T. Fu, D. Chiu, J. Lui, and C. Huang. ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 38(4):375-388, 2008.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the following people who provided review,
feedback and suggestions to this document: M. Stiemerling;D. Bryan E.
Marocco; V. Gurbani; R. Even; H. Zhang; C. Schmidt;L. Xiao; C.
Williams; V. Pasual; D. Zhang; J. Lei.
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Problem statement of PPSP July 2011
Authors' Addresses
Yunfei Zhang
China Mobile Communication Corporation
zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com
Ning Zong
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
zongning@huawei.com
Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson
Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
James Seng
PPLive
james.seng@pplive.com
Richard Yang
Yale University
yry@cs.yale.edu
Zhang Expires January 4, 2012 [Page 21]
