ANCP F. Le Faucheur Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track R. Maglione Expires: September 10, 2009 Telecom Italia T. Taylor Huawei March 9, 2009 Additional Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP draft-lefaucheur-ancp-mc-extensions-01.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 Abstract This memorandum aims at defining additional ANCP protocol extensions (beyond those already defined) to support some of the Multicast use cases defined in the ANCP Framework document that are not yet supported. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. ANCP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Provisioning Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Port Management Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Multicast Admission Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Multicast Replication Control Message . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5. Multicast Status Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.6. Bandwidth Reallocation Request Message . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.7. Bandwidth Transfer Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.8. Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response Messages . 15 3.9. Delegated Bandwidth Reset Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. ANCP TLVs and Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1. Multicast-Service-Profile TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.1. Processing of Joins/Leaves at the Access Node based on Multicast-Service-Profile . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2. Service-Profile TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.3. Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.4. Bandwidth-Allocation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.5. Bandwidth-Request TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.6. Bandwidth-Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.7. Multicast-Service-Profile-Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.8. Request-Source-IP sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.9. Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.10. Command Codes of Command TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. New Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Example of Messages and Message Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1. Multicast Conditional Access and CAC without AN Bandwidth Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1.1. List/Profile Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1.2. Profile Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1.3. Successful Join/Leave Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1.4. Admission Control Reject without NAS Response . . . . 39 6.1.5. Admission Control Reject with NAS Response . . . . . . 41 6.2. Example Flows For Bandwidth Delegation . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.2.1. Activation and Provisioning of Delegated Bandwidth . . 46 6.2.2. Admission Control of White Flow Without Change in Delegated Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 6.2.3. Admission Control of White Flow with Increase in Delegated Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6.2.4. Admission Control of Grey Flow Without Change in Delegated Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 6.2.5. Admission Control of Grey Flow with Increase in Delegated Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.2.6. Failed Autonomous Bandwidth Transfer With Reset . . . 55 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 1. Introduction [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] defines a framework and requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node (e.g. a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM)) in a multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and Subscriber-related operations. [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] specifies a Protocol for Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Networks in line with this framework. [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] defines multicast use cases as well as the corresponding ANCP multicast requirements, ANCP Access Node multicast requirements and ANCP NAS multicast requirements. The current version of [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] incorporates (or will incorporate) the extensions proposed in [I-D.ancp-mc-extensions]. Therefore it supports a subset of the multicast use cases (specifically it supports the NAS initiated ANCP Multicast Control use case). This memorandum proposes some extensions to the ANCP protocol to cover a bigger subset of the multicast use cases (specifically the Conditional Access use case and the Multicast Admission Control use cases with and without Bandwidth delegation). Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. The expression "delegated bandwidth" is used as a shorter way of saying: "the total amount of video bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control". Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 3. ANCP Messages This section defines new ANCP messages and new usage of existing ANCP messages as well as procedures associated with the use of these messages. 3.1. Provisioning Message This section defines a new message called the Provisioning message. The Provisioning message is sent by the NAS to the AN to provision information in the AN. This message can be used to provision multicast-related information (e.g. Multicast Service Profiles, Bandwidth Delegation activation/deactivation) as well as non- multicast-related information (e.g. Service Profile). The Message Type for the Provisioning message is 93 (TBC). The NAS sending the Provisioning message MUST set the Result field to 0x00. The NAS MUST populate the ANCP Transaction Identifier field with a distinct non-zero, linearly incrementing value for each request per adjacency, as described in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] . The ANCP Provisioning message payload MAY contain the following TLVs: o Service-Profile TLV: the Service-Profile TLV is defined in the present document in Section 4.2. It MAY appear zero, one or multiple times. o Multicast-Service-Profile TLV: the Multicast-Service-Profile TLV is defined in the present document in Section 4.1. It MAY appear zero, one or multiple times. Each instance of the Multicast- Service-Profile TLV contains a (possibly empty) White List, a (possibly empty) Grey List, a (possibly empty) Black List and the Multicast Service Profile name associated with this set of three lists. o Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV: The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV is defined in the present document in Section 4.3. It MAY appear zero times or once. When present, it instructs the AN on whether Bandwidth Delegation is to be activated or deactivated. The AN MUST interpret the absence of the Bandwidth-Delegation- Control TLV as indicating that bandwidth delegation is to be deactivated. On receipt of the Provisioning message, the AN MUST: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o ignore the Result field o if the AN can process the message successfully and accept all the provisioning directives contained in it, the AN MUST NOT send any response. o [Editor's note: the behavior of the AN when it cannot process the message, or when it cannot accept all the provisioning directives contained in it is for further study.] 3.2. Port Management Message As defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol], the NAS may send line configuration information to the AN ("ANCP based Line Configuration" use case) using GSMP Port Management messages modified to contain an extension block. [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines a number of TLVs that can be included in the Extension Value field inside a Port Management message (e.g. "Access-Loop-Circuit-ID", "Service- Profile-Name"). This document specifies that the Port Management message MAY also be used by the NAS to associate a "Multicast-Service-Profile" (aka. a triple of White, Grey and Black lists) to a AN port. To do so, the NAS includes a "Multicast-Service-Profile-Name" TLV as defined in Section 4.7 in the Port Management message. In addition, when bandwidth delegation is activated for this AN, the Port Management message MAY be used to provision the initial amount of bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control (hereafter referred to as the "delegated bandwidth"). To do so, the NAS includes a "Bandwidth-Allocation" TLV as defined in Section 4.4 in the Port Management message. Editor's Note: the Port Management message requires the specification of an Access-Loop-Circuit-Id TLV indicating the target of the assignment. Thinking about the possibility of PON, will we be updating the definition of Access-Loop-Circuit-Id TLV to include default naming formats for PON? Of the authors, TT prefers this route, leaving Target to designate multiple targets for the same command. 3.3. Multicast Admission Control Message This section defines a new message called the Multicast Admission Control message. The Multicast Admission Control message is sent by the AN to the NAS to request admission of a multicast flow, or to notify of the removal of a multicast flow, over a given target. The NAS will use a Multicast Replication Control message (as discussed in Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 Section 3.4) in order to convey back to the AN the outcome of the admission request. The Message Type for the Multicast Admission Control message is 92 (TBC). The AN sending the Multicast Admission Control message MUST set the Result field to "0x00". The AN MUST populate the ANCP Transaction Identifier field with a distinct non-zero, linearly incrementing value for each request per adjacency, as described in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] . The ANCP Multicast Admission Control message payload contains two TLVs: o Target TLV: The Target TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. It MUST appear once and only once in the Multicast Admission Control message. It is encoded as specified in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] and identifies the AN port subject to the request for admission or release. o Command TLV: The Command TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. It MUST be present. If it appears more than once, only the first instance is considered meaningful in the present version of the document and the other instances are ignored . The Command TLV is encoded as specified in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] with the following additional rules: * the R flag is set to 0 * the O flag is set to 0 * the Command field is set to "0x01 - Add" when the message conveys a Join , to "0x02 - Delete" when the message conveys a Leave and to "0x03 - Delete All" when the message conveys a Leave of all channels (on the target). * The M Flag, Multicast Source Address and Multicast Flow Address of the Command TLV identify the multicast flow subject to the request for admission or release. * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV (as defined in Section 4.8) MAY be included by the AN to convey the IP address of the sender of the join/leave message (e.g. IGMP Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in the Admission Control message. If it appears more than once, only the first instance is considered meaningful and the other Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 instances are ignored. * a Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV (as defined in Section 4.9) MAY be included by the AN to convey the MAC address of the sender of the join/leave message (e.g. IGMP Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in the Admission Control message. If it appears more than once, only the first instance is considered meaningful and the other instances are ignored. In the future, the specification of the Admission Control message may be extended to allow transport of more than a single directive (e.g. to carry both a leave from one group and a join to another group for the same Target). It is expected that this would support a similar notion of strict sequenced processing as currently defined for handling multiple directives in the Multicast Replication Control message whereby all directives following the first directive that can not be executed are not executed either. When the strict sequenced processing of the directives is not required the directives are distributed across separate messages 3.4. Multicast Replication Control Message [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] describes the "NAS initiated ANCP Multicast Control" use case. In this use case, the NAS issues ANCP directives to the AN to instruct the AN to either add (join) or delete (leave) multicast flows without the AN having previously issued corresponding ANCP requests. To support this use case, [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines the Multicast Replication Control message and how that message can be used from the NAS to the AN to convey a directive to either add (join) or delete (leave) one or more multicast flows. The present section specifies another use of the Multicast Replication Control message in order to support the "Multicast Admission Control" use case defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework]. To support that use case, the Multicast Replication Control message can also be used by the NAS in response to a Multicast Admission Control message from the AN. On receipt of an Multicast Admission Control message, the NAS: o MUST ignore the Result field o if the directive in the Multicast Admission Control message is "0x02 - Delete" or "0x03 - Delete All" and is processed correctly by the NAS, the NAS MUST NOT generate any ANCP message in response to the Multicast Admission Control message Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o if the directive in the Multicast Admission Control message is "0x01 - Add" and is accepted by the NAS, the NAS MUST generate a Multicast Replication Control in response to the Multicast Admission Control message. The Multicast Replication Control message: * MUST contain a Result set to 0x00 * MUST contain a Transaction ID generated by the NAS (distinct non-zero, and linearly incremented by NAS for each request per adjacency). * MUST contain the directive as accepted by the NAS o if the directive in the Multicast Admission Control message is "0x01 - Add", is processed correctly but not accepted by the NAS (i.e. it does not pass the admission control or conditional access check), the NAS MAY generate a Multicast Replication Control message in response to the Multicast Admission Control message. This optional message can be used by the AN to maintain statistics about admission control reject and, in the future, when the protocol between the subscriber and the AN allows explicit notification of join reject (e.g. [I-D.morin-mboned-igmpmld-error-feedback]). When used, the Multicast Replication Control message: * MUST contain a Result set to 0x00 * MUST contain a Transaction ID generated by the NAS (distinct non-zero, and linearly incremented by NAS for each request per adjacency). * MUST contain the directive rejected by the NAS (i.e. Target TLV and Command TLV) but with a Command Code set to "0xTBD - Admission Control Reject", "0xTBD - Conditional Access Reject" or "0xTBD - Admission Control and Conditional Access Reject". o if the Multicast Admission Control message cannot be processed correctly by the NAS (e.g. the message is malformed, the multicast flow does not exist etc.), the NAS MUST generate a Multicast Status message in response to the Multicast Admission Control message. The Multicast Status message: * MUST contain a Result set to "Failure" in the ANCP header * MUST contain a Transaction ID that echoes the value of the Transaction ID received in the Multicast Admission Control message. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 * MUST contain a Status TLV including a Result Code indicating the reason why the Admission Control message could not be processed and encoded as specified in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]. 3.5. Multicast Status Message [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines the Multicast Status message and how that message can be used in response to a Replication Control message in order to support of the NAS initiated ANCP Multicast Control use case. Section 3.4 of the present document also specifies use of the Multicast Status message by the NAS on receipt of a Multicast Admission Control message that cannot be processed correctly. This section specifies another use of the Multicast Status message in order to support the Multicast Admission Control use cases defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework]. When the AN receives a Multicast Replication Control message (that is a response to a Multicast Admission Control message sent earlier by the AN), the AN can use the Multicast Status message to respond to the Multicast Replication Control message exactly as already defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] for the NAS initiated ANCP Multicast Control use case. For example, if the AN cannot process the Multicast Replication Control message, it MUST respond with a Multicast Status message with a Result set to Failure and a Status TLV indicating the reason of the failure (e.g. 0x09 - Target port down). 3.6. Bandwidth Reallocation Request Message The Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is used when the Bandwidth Delegation capability has been activated. It MAY be sent either by the NAS or by the AN to request an adjustment in the amount of delegated bandwidth. It will be sent by the NAS typically to reduce the multicast bandwidth allocated to the AN in order for the NAS to satisfy a request to add a unicast video channel. Conversely, the AN will send a Bandwidth Reallocation Request to obtain additional bandwidth to satisfy a request to add a multicast channel. In each case, the requestor has a minimum requirement for additional bandwidth, and MAY ask for additional bandwidth beyond this amount (say to handle anticipated future requests). The Message Type for the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is 94 (TBC). The Result field in the header of the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is not used and MUST be set to Ignore (0x00). The Bandwidth Reallocation Request message MUST contain two TLVs: o the Target TLV (section 5.4.5.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol]), specifying a single access line; [TT - I would prefer the Access- Loop-Circuit-Id TLV, believing it should evolve to include non-DSL Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 identifiers, but the majority overruled me]; o the Bandwidth-Request TLV (Section 4.5), specifying the required and preferred amounts of delegated bandwidth. The bandwidth values in the Bandwidth-Request TLV are expressed in terms of total bandwidth delegated to the AN. The choice of "total bandwidth" rather than "incremental bandwidth" was made so that it would be easier for the AN and NAS to keep their respective views of the current amount of delegated bandwidth synchronized. Because the values are totals rather than desired increments/ decrements, the relationship between the Required Delegated Bandwidth and the Preferred Delegated Bandwidth will differ depending on whether the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message is issued by the NAS or the AN. o If the NAS is making the request, the Preferred Delegated Bandwidth MUST be less than or equal to the Required Delegated Bandwidth. The Required Delegated Bandwidth MUST be less than the current delegated bandwidth value. o If the AN is making the request, the Preferred Delegated Bandwidth MUST be greater than or equal to the Required Delegated Bandwidth. The Required Delegated Bandwidth MUST be greater than the current delegated bandwidth value. If these conditions are violated and the problem is the relationship between the required amount and the receiver's view of the current delegated bandwidth, the delegated bandwidth reset procedure described in Section 3.9 MUST be performed. If the problem is the relationship between the Preferred and Required Delegated Bandwidth values, the peer receiving the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message MUST return a Multicast Status message where the Result field in the header indicates Failure (0x4) and the Status-Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = invalid Preferred Delegated Bandwidth value (0xTBD); Command Number = 0x1; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 the Target TLV, copied from the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message; the Bandwidth-Request TLV, also copied from the request message. When the peer receives a valid Bandwidth Reallocation Request message, it SHOULD determine whether it can satisfy the request from its existing allocation of unused video bandwidth. If it decides that it can reallocate bandwidth to the peer, it MAY choose to return any amount between the Required and the Preferred Delegated Bandwidth indicated in the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. The peer MUST return a Bandwidth Transfer message Section 3.7 indicating its decision. If the request is met, the Result field of the Bandwidth Transfer message MUST be set to Success (0x3), and the Bandwidth- Allocation TLV (Section 4.4) MUST contain the new value of delegated bandwidth. This new value MUST lie between the Required and Preferred Delegated Bandwidth values, inclusive, from the request message. If the request is not met, the Result field of the Bandwidth Transfer message MUST be set to Failure (0x4) and the Bandwidth Allocation TLV MUST contain the value of the current amount of delegated bandwidth as the responder views it. To avoid deadlock due to race conditions, the following rules MUST be applied: a. If the NAS receives a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message while it has a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message of its own outstanding for the same access line, the NAS MUST provide an immediate failure response to the request from the AN. b. If the AN receives a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message while it has a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message of its own outstanding for the same access line, the AN MUST release any bandwidth it has already committed to an outstanding Join request while it is awaiting a response from the NAS. It MUST decide upon and send its response to the NAS taking the released bandwidth into account. [Editor's Note: This is an arbitrary rule which effectively gives priority to unicast over multicast. Is that the right direction?] 3.7. Bandwidth Transfer Message The Bandwidth Transfer message is used to transfer video bandwidth from the sender to the peer for a specific access line. This message MAY be sent either from the AN or from the NAS. As described in the previous section, it is the required response to a valid Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 The Bandwidth Transfer message MAY also be used to transfer bandwidth autonomously from one peer to another. One example of this usage is to release bandwidth borrowed earlier by means of the Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. When the message is used in this way, the Result field in the Bandwidth Transfer message MUST be set to Ignore (0x0). This allows the receiver to distinguish between an autonomous transfer and a response to a previous Bandwidth Reallocation Request, for purposes of validation. The Message Type for the Bandwidth Transfer message is 95 (TBC). The Bandwidth Transfer message MUST contain the following TLVs: o the Target TLV, designating the access line concerned; o an instance of the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV (Section 4.4). The bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV is the new amount of delegated bandwidth. The following relationships MUST hold: o if the message is sent by the NAS, the Delegated Bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV MUST be greater than or equal to the current amount of delegated bandwidth for the access line concerned; o if the message is sent by the AN, the Delegated Bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV MUST be less than or equal to the current amount of delegated bandwidth for the access line concerned. In either case, equality to the current delegated bandwidth is permitted only for a failure response to a previous Bandwidth Reallocation Request. If the Bandwidth Transfer message satisfies these conditions, the receiver MUST update its view of the amount of delegated bandwidth to the value given in the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV. If, on the other hand, the bandwidth value in the Bandwidth-Value TLV does not satisfy the conditions, the receiver MAY either accept the new value or MAY choose to initiate the delegated bandwidth reset procedure described in Section 3.9. 3.8. Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response Messages The Message Type for the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response messages is 96 (TBC). The Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message MAY be sent by the NAS to retrieve the AN's view of the total amount of delegated bandwidth Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 and the amount that is already committed. The request contains one TLV: o a Target TLV designating the access line(s) for which the information is requested. Consistently with other multicast-related messages, the Result field in the header of the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message MUST be set to Ignore (0x0). If the AN receives an invalid Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message, it MUST return a Multicast Status message with the Result field in the header set to Failure (0x4). The following cases may occur: o if the Target is invalid, the Status-Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = unrecognized target (0x04); Command Number = the order of the invalid Target TLV within the request, numbering from 1 for the first one listed; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); the invalid Target TLV, copied from the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request message. o if bandwidth delegation is not activated on the AN, the Status- Info TLV contains the following values: Result Code = bandwidth delegation not activated (0xTBD); Command Number = 0x1; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text). The AN MUST respond to a valid request with a Delegated Bandwidth Query Response. The Result field in the header of this message MUST be set to Success (0x3). This message contains the following TLVs: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o the Target TLV, copied from the request; o one instance of the Bandwidth-Status TLV (Section 4.6) for each access line designated in the Target TLV. The instances MUST have the same order in the response as the corresponding access lines in the Target TLV. [Editor's Note: the base protocol draft is incomplete regarding the specification of multiple access lines in the Target TLV.] 3.9. Delegated Bandwidth Reset Procedure The bandwidth delegation reset procedure defined in this section reuses existing ANCP messages or messages defined in other section of this document. No new ANCP messages are defined in this section. As described above, the receiver of a Bandwidth Reallocation Request or Bandwidth Transfer message may determine that a bandwidth value in that message bears an incorrect relationship to its view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth. The probable cause of this condition is a discrepancy between its view and its peer's view of the current delegated bandwidth. Upon detecting this condition, the receiver MAY choose to initiate the reset procedure described in this section. If so, it MUST send a Multicast Status message to its peer with the Result field in the header set to Failure (0x4) and a Status-Info TLV containing the following values: Result Code = delegated bandwidth reset required (0xTBD); Command Number = 0x1; Error Message Length = 0x0 (or optionally the length of an error message, padded to a four-octet boundary); Error Message (optional text); the Target TLV, copied from the received message an instance of the Bandwidth-Allocation TLV containing the receiver's view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth. Upon sending or receiving a Multicast Status message containing this Result Code, the NAS MUST take the following actions: 1. halt processing of admission requests for the access line indicated by the Target TLV until the reset procedure is complete; Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 2. issue a Delegated Bandwidth Query request message to the AN to determine the amount of bandwidth it has currently committed to multicast usage, and its view of the amount of delegated bandwidth; 3. based on the reply and possibly in consultation with the Policy Server, apply policy to determine what the amount of delegated bandwidth should be; 4. issue a Port Management message where the Access-Loop-Circuit-Id TLV is derived from the Target TLV in the Multicast Status message. The Port Management message MUST contain a Bandwidth- Allocation TLV giving the decided amount of delegated bandwidth. 5. update its own view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth to the decided amount. At this point the reset procedure is complete and the NAS can resume processing of admission requests for the affected access line. Upon sending or receiving a Multicast Status message containing this Result Code, the AN MUST take the following actions: 1. halt processing of admission requests for the access line indicated by the Target TLV until the reset procedure is complete; 2. wait for and respond to a Delegated Bandwidth Query request message, indicating the amount of bandwidth it has currently committed to multicast usage and its view of the amount of delegated bandwidth; 3. wait for a Port Management message giving the decided amount of delegated bandwidth for the access line concerned; 4. update its view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth to the amount received in the Port Management message. At this point the reset procedure is complete and the AN can resume processing of admission requests for the affected access line. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 4. ANCP TLVs and Sub-TLVs This section defines new ANCP TLVs and sub-TLVs or extends existing ones. 4.1. Multicast-Service-Profile TLV This document defines the new Multicast-Service-Profile TLV. The Multicast-Service-Profile TLV MAY be included in a Provisioning message as specified in Section 3.1. The Multicast-Service-Profile is illustrated in Figure 1: 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Mcast Service Profile | TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast-Service-Profile-Name Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0001 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | White-List Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0002 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Grey-List Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0003 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Black-List Sub-TLV | | Sub-TLV type = 0x0004 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Multicast-Servive-Profile TLV Each of the four sub-TLVs begins with a 32-bit header consisting of a 16-bit sub-TLV type code followed by a 16-bit length field giving the amount of data following this sub-TLV header in octets. The type code values for the respective sub-TLVs are indicated in the figure. The content of the sub-TLV follows immediately after the sub-TLV header. The sub-TLVs are placed into the list consecutively without intervening padding. The Multicast Service Profile Name sub-TLV MUST be present, and MUST be unique over all profiles provisioned to the same AN partition. At least one other sub-TLV MUST be present, but any of White List, Grey List, or Black List sub-TLV MAY be omitted if not applicable to this profile. The Multicast-Service-Profile-Name sub-TLV is an opaque sequence of octets used to refer to the profile when activating it for a given Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 target within a Port Management message (see Section 3.2). The content of the White-List, Grey-List, and Black-List sub-TLVs following their respective headers is in each case a sequence of multicast flow fields organized by address family. IPv4 addresses are listed first, followed by IPv6 addresses. Either set of addresses MAY be omitted if not applicable, but at least one set of addresses MUST be present. Figure 2 shows the detailed layout of a white, grey, or black list, where the detailed layout of an individual multicast flow field is described below. The list length in Figure 2 is the number of octets of multicast flow field data for that address family following the list header. 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLV tag = 0x0002,3,4 | Sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Ver=0x0000 (IPv4) | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast flow fields | ...... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Ver=0x0001 (IPv6) | List Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multicast flow fields | ...... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Organization of a White, Grey, or Black List Each multicast flow field refers either to a Single Source Multicast (SSM) channel or to an Any Source Multicast (ASM) group. The scope of the designation may be broadened to multiple channels or groups through use of prefix length values smaller than the total address length for the given address family. Multicast flow fields MUST be placed consecutively within the sub-TLV without intervening padding except to round out individual addresses to the nearest octet boundary. A multicast flow field consists of two single-octet prefix lengths followed by zero to two prefix values as shown in Figure 3: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group PrefLen | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source PrefLen| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Prefix (multicast) (0 to 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Prefix (unicast, SSM only) (0 to 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Organization of a Single Multicast Flow Field The prefix length has its usual meaning. It is the number of most- significant bits specified within the corresponding prefix. The prefix length MAY vary from 0 to 32 in the IPv4 sub-list, and from 0 to 128 in the IPv6 sub-list. A match to the multicast flow specification is performed based on the prefix values only, ignoring lower-order bits in the respective addresses. A value of 0x00 for either the Group PrefLen (prefix length) or the Source PrefLen indicates that any value of the corresponding address will match (wild card). If the value 0x00 is provided for a particular prefix length, the corresponding prefix MUST be omitted from the field contents. In particular, a value of 0x00 for the Source PrefLen indicates an ASM multicast entry, and the Source Prefix will be absent. The length of a Source or Group Prefix field is equal to (PrefLen + 7)/8 octets, truncated to the nearest integer. Unused bits at the end of the prefix MUST be set to zeros. 4.1.1. Processing of Joins/Leaves at the Access Node based on Multicast-Service-Profile When the AN receives an IGMP Join request, it first checks whether the program limit for that subscriber has been exceeded. If so, it discards the request. Otherwise its next step is to determine whether the source and group of the request match a multicast flow specification in the white list, the grey list, or the black list according to the profile assigned to the access line. If the requested multicast flow matches multiple lists associated with the access line, then the most specific match will be considered by the AN. If the most specific match occurs in multiple lists, the Black list entry takes precedence over the Grey list, which takes precedence over the White list. In this context, the most specific match is defined as: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o first, most specific match on the multicast flow address (i.e. on G of ) o then, most specific match on the multicast source address (i.e. on S of ) If the requested multicast flow is not part of any list, the join message SHOULD be discarded by the AN. This default behavior can easily be changed by means of a "catch-all" statement in either the White list or the Grey list. For instance, adding () in the White List would make the default behavior to accept join messages for a multicast flow that has no other match on any list. If the requested multicast flow matches a flow in the black list, the AN discards the Join request. Otherwise, if bandwidth delegation is active for the access line, the AN determines whether it has enough unused capacity out of the total video bandwidth that has been delegated to it for multicast admission control. If so, it does white or grey list processing as described below. If there is not enough unused bandwidth, it MAY issue a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message. The Required Delegated Bandwidth in the Bandwidth-Request TLV MUST be large enough that if the request is granted, there will be sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the Join request. The AN MAY set the Preferred Delegated Bandwidth in the Bandwidth-Request TLV to the same value as the Required Delegated Bandwidth, or to some higher amount determined by local policy. If the request fails or if the AN does not choose to issue a Bandwidth Reallocation Request (e.g., because another such request failed recently), it does no further processing of the Join request. If the bandwidth delegation bandwidth check succeeds or if bandwidth delegation is not active, then: o if the requested multicast flow matches a flow in the white list, the AN MUST autonomously start replicating multicast traffic according to the request; o if the requested flow matches a flow in the grey list, the AN MUST send a Multicast Admission Control message (Section 3.3) to the NAS with the value of Command set to Add (0x01). If and when a responding Multicast Replication Control message (Section 3.4) arrives from the NAS, the AN SHOULD act according to its content. The AN MAY set a timer after which it will take no further action on the Join request and will ignore the Multicast Replication Control response, if any. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 When the AN receives a Leave request for an admitted flow, it halts replication of the indicated channel to the access line concerned. In the case of a grey list flow, it also notifies the NAS using the Multicast Admission Control message with the Command TLV set to Delete (0x03). If bandwidth delegation is active for the access line, the AN updates accordingly its view of the amount of committed bandwidth within the delegated bandwidth. 4.2. Service-Profile TLV This TLV is outside the scope of the present document as it is not related to Multicast. It may be defined as part of a separate effort and is expected to allow configuration of all the relevant parameters of a service profile as well as its Service Profile Name. 4.3. Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV This document defines the new Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV. The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV MAY be included in a Provisioning message as specified in Section 3.1. The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV is illustrated below in Figure 4. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Del-Control | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: The Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV Type: TLV (0xTBD) : indicating that this is a Bandwidth- Delegation-Control TLV Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV Length: Combined length in bytes of the data inside sub-TLV. Excludes the sub-TLV Header. E Flag:: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 23] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 When set to 0, indicates that Bandwidth Delegation is to be disabled on the AN. When set to 1, indicates that Bandwidth Delegation is to be enabled on the AN. When Bandwidth Delegation is enabled, the AN MUST subject multicast channels matching the White List or the Grey List to admission control according to the Bandwidth Delegation procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework]. If Bandwidth Delegation is enabled, the NAS SHOULD provision the AN with an initial value for the delegated bandwidth for each line using the Port Management (Line Configuration) message. An default initial delegated bandwidth value MAY be configured directly on the AN. A delegated bandwidth value received in a Port Management message overrides any configured value. If no value is configured and no value is provisioned by the NAS, the default initial amount of delegated bandwidth is zero. This implies that in the absence of provisioning or configuration, the AN will issue a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message to the NAS asking for multicast bandwidth, the first time it receives an IGMP Join for the given line. 4.4. Bandwidth-Allocation TLV The Bandwidth-Allocation TLV is used to indicate the total amount of video bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control for a given line, in kilobits per second. The TLV has the format shown in Figure 5. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Alloc | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated Bandwidth (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: The Bandwidth-Allocation TLV 4.5. Bandwidth-Request TLV The Bandwidth-Request TLV is used to request an adjustment of the total amount of video bandwidth delegated to the AN for multicast admission control for a given line. The "Required Delegated Bandwidth" field indicates the minimum adjustment required to meet the request. The "Preferred Delegated Bandwidth" field indicates the adjustment the requestor would prefer to have, if possible. Section 3.6 discusses the required relationships between the "Required Delegated Bandwidth", "Preferred Delegated Bandwidth", and Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 current values of total bandwidth delegated to the AN. The Bandwidth-Request TLV has the format shown in Figure 6. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Req | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Required Delegated Bandwidth (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preferred Delegated Bandwidth (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: The Bandwidth-Request TLV 4.6. Bandwidth-Status TLV The Bandwidth-Status TLV is used in the Delegated Bandwidth Query Response to report the AN's view of the current amount of delegated bandwidth and the amount of bandwidth within that quantity that is already committed to active programs. The Bandwidth-Status TLV has the format shown in Figure 7. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Band-Status | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated Bandwidth (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Committed Bandwidth (kbits/s) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: The Bandwidth-Status TLV The Committed Bandwidth SHOULD be less than or equal to the Delegated Bandwidth. One case where this may not be so is if the procedure described in Section 3.9 has been performed and the NAS returned a Delegated Bandwidth lower than the current Committed Bandwidth. Another case might be if bandwidth delegation was activated after multicast bandwidth had been allocated by other means. Obviously such cases are exceptional and transient in nature. 4.7. Multicast-Service-Profile-Name TLV [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines an Extension TLV that can be used in ANCP messages. It also defines a number of TLVs that can be included in the Extension TLV when present (with a Tech Type set to "DSL") in a Port Management message (e.g. "Access-Loop-Circuit-ID", "Service- Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 Profile-Name"). This document defines an additional TLV that can appear in an Extension TLV of Tech Type "DSL" in a Port Management message: o Type (Multicast-Service-Profile-Name = 0x06 - TBC): Reference to a multicast service profile on the AN, that defines a triple. Length : (up to 64 bytes) Value : ASCII string containing the multicast profile name. 4.8. Request-Source-IP sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines the Command TLV that can be used in a Multicast Replication Control message and (as defined in this document) in the Admission Control message. The Command TLV MAY include sub-TLVs immediately following the Command Info field. This document defines the new Request-Source-IP sub-TLV. The Request-Source-IP sub-TLV MAY be included in a Command TLV inside an Admission Control message. The Request-Source-IP sub-TLV is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |sub-TLV Type = Request-Source-IP | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr Family | Encoding Type | Unicast Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Request-Source-IP sub-TLV Type: sub-TLV (0xTBD) indicating the contents to be one or more command directives. Request-Source-IP sub-TLV Length: Combined length in bytes of the data inside sub-TLV. Excludes the sub-TLV Header. Address Family, Encoding type and Unicast Address: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 Contains the IP address of the sender of the join/leave message (e.g. IGMP Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in an Admission Control message. The IP address is encoded as per [IANAAEA]. 4.9. Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV This document defines the new Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV. The Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV MAY be included in a Command TLV inside an Admission Control message. The Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |sub-TLV Type=Request-Source-MAC |Request-S-MAC sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TBD | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Request-Source-MAC sub-TLV Type: sub-TLV (0xTBD) indicating the contents to be one or more command directives. Request-Source-MAC sub- TLV Length: Combined length in bytes of the data inside sub-TLV. Excludes the sub-TLV Header. TBD: Contains the IEEE MAC address of the sender of the join/ leave message (e.g. IGMP Join/Leave) that triggered the AN to include the corresponding Command TLV in an Admission Control message. The IP address is encoded as per TBD. 4.10. Command Codes of Command TLV [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines a number of Command Codes for the Command TLV (e.g. "0x01 - Add"). The present document specifies the following new additional values for the Command Code of the Command TLV: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 27] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0xTBD - Admission Control Reject 0xTBD - Conditional Access Reject 0xTBD - Admission Control and Conditional Access Reject Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 28] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 5. New Capabilities [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] defines a capability negotiation mechanism as well as a number of capabilities. In particular, [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] currently defines the Transactional- Multicast capability in the following way: " 3. Capability Type : Transactional-Multicast = 0x03 (controller i.e. NAS terminates IGMP messages from subscribers, and via l2 control protocol, signals state to the access-nodes (e.g. DSLAMs) to enable layer2 replication of multicast streams. In ATM access network this implies that NAS instructs the access-node to setup a P2MP cross- connect. The details of this will be covered in a separate ID. Length (in bytes) : 0 Capability Data : NULL " This document redefines this Capability Type into a more generic Multicast Capability Type allowing negotiation of the level of subcapability within the Multicast capability. The updated capability definition is: o Capability Type : Multicast = 0x03 Length (in bytes) : 1 Capability Data (1 byte): The following values are defined: + 0x00: Reserved + 0x01: "Transactional Multicast" + 0x02: "Transactional Multicast" and "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" + 0x03: "Transactional Multicast", "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" and "Multicast Admission Control with Bandwidth Delegation" + other values: Reserved Both the NAS and the AN MUST advertise the Multicast capability in their originated adjacency messages when they support it. Initially, Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 29] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 they indicate the full set of multicast subcapabilities that they respectively support by setting the Capability Value to the value corresponding to their respective supported set of subcapabilities. Then, if a received adjacency message indicates that the originating device supports a smaller set of multicast subcapabilities that the device receiving the message, the receiving device will turn off the multicast subcapabilities that are not supported by the other device and will send an updated adjacency message with an updated Capability Value that now matches the one of the other device. This process will eventually result in both sides agreeing on the common set of supported multicast subcapabilities. For example, if the NAS supports "Transactional Multicast" and "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" while the AN only supports "Transactional Multicast", the NAS and AN will initially advertise the Multicast capability with a respective Capability Data of 0x02 and 0x01. On receipt of the adjacency message from the AN, the NAS will turn off its "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" subcapability and will send a new adjacency message with a Multicast capability containing a Capability Data of 0x01. From there on, the NAS and AN agree to make use of (only) the "Transactional Multicast" subcapability. A NAS or AN supporting the "Transactional Multicast" subcapability MUST support the Multicast Replication message and the Multicast Status message. A NAS or AN supporting the "Transactional Multicast" and "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" subcapabilities MUST support the Multicast Admission Control message, the Multicast Replication message and the Multicast Status message. A NAS or AN supporting the "Transactional Multicast", "Multicast Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation" and "Multicast Admission Control with Bandwidth Delegation" capability MUST support the Multicast Admission Control message, the Multicast Replication message, the Multicast Status message, the Bandwidth Reallocation Request and Response messages, the Autonomous Bandwidth Transfer message and the Delegated Bandwidth Query Request and Response messages. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 30] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 6. Example of Messages and Message Flows This section provides example message flows. 6.1. Multicast Conditional Access and CAC without AN Bandwidth Delegation This section describes ANCP operations when multicast flows are subject to multicast Conditional Access and Admission Control without Bandwidth Delegation. 6.1.1. List/Profile Provisioning The AN provisioning is performed by NAS using a Provisioning message that contains White/Black/Grey lists and their corresponding "Multicast Service Profile Name". To indicate to the AN that it need not perform any CAC operation on those flows, the Provisioning message also conveys an indication that Bandwidth Delegation is to be deactivated. The corresponding message flow is illustrated in Figure 8. +----------+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN | | NAS | +----------+ | Gateway | +-----+ +-----+ | +---------+ | | | | | | | | |(M1) Provisioning | | | | (Mcast S Prof name, | | | | White List, | | | | Grey List, | | | | Black List, | | | | Bw Del Deactivated) | | | |<--------------------| Figure 8: Provisioning AN with White/Grey/Black Lists for Conditional Access The Provisioning message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 93 - Provisioning * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by NAS Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 31] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o a Multicast-Service-Profile TLV containing: * a Multicast-Service-Profile-Name sub-TLV * an Empty White-List in our example (and hence no White-List sub-TLV) * a Grey-List sub-TLV containing a catch-all entry for IPv4 (in our example) * an Empty Black-List in our example (and hence no Black-List sub-TLV) The Provisioning message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=93 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0008 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Type | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0001 | sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Multicast service profile name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0003 | sub-TLV Length = 0x06 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP ver = 0x00 | List length = 0x02 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Grp PLen=0x00 | Src PLen=0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9 Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 32] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 6.1.2. Profile Mapping As soon as the AN port comes up, the AN sends an ANCP PORT_UP message to the NAS specifying the Access Loop Circuit ID. The NAS replies with an ANCP PORT_MNGT message that, together with the other parameters, includes the Multicast Service Profile Name to be associated to that Port. The corresponding message flow is illustrated in Figure 10. +----------+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN | | NAS | +----------+ | Gateway | +-----+ +-----+ | +---------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | DSL Synch. | | | |--------------------->| | | | |(M1)PORT_UP(Port ID) | | | |-------------------->| | | | (*) | | |(M2) PORT_MNGT | | | | (Port ID, | | | |Mcast S Profile Name)| | | |<--------------------| (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 10: Associating Profile ID to AN Port 6.1.3. Successful Join/Leave Operations The message flows in Figure 11 illustrates the ANCP message flow in case of a simple join and leave for a multicast flow that matches the grey list and when the "Bandwidth Delegation" mechanism is not activated in the AN. In that case the AN queries the NAS that performs Conditional Access and Admission Control. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 33] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | Multicast | | | | Replication (*) | | | Control (M2) | | Mcast Grey-Fl |<------------------| |<======================+ | | | | | ~ ~ ~ ~ | | | | | Leave(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M3) | | | |------------------>| | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation not activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 11: Successful Join/Leave Operations The Multicast Admission Control message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 34] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP Join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.2) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0001 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ The Multicast Replication Control message M2 contains: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 35] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 90 - Multicast Replication Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by NAS o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add * R= 1 (since in our example the flow resources have been admitted by NAS) * O = 0 (since in our example flow accounting is not required) * the multicast flow for which the IGMP Join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.2) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M2 is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 36] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=90 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0009 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |1 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ The Multicast Admission Control message M3 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 37] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 * a Command Code = Delete * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP leave was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.2) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M3 is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 38] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0002 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0002 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x02 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = 0xTBD (Request-S.) TLV | Request-S.-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ 6.1.4. Admission Control Reject without NAS Response The message flow in Figure 12 illustrates the ANCP message flow in case of a join that is rejected by the NAS because of admission control and without explicit response from the NAS. In that case, the multicast flow is never replicated simply by virtue of the NAS not requesting replication. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 39] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | (*) | | | | | Mcast Grey Flow | | | not replicated x | | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation not activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 12: Admission Control Reject without NAS Response The Multicast Admission Control message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.3). Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 40] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0003 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ 6.1.5. Admission Control Reject with NAS Response The message flow in Figure 13 illustrates the ANCP message flow in case of a join that is rejected by the NAS because of admission control and with explicit response from the NAS. In that case, the multicast flow is not replicated by virtue of the NAS explicitly signaling to the AN that the multicast flow is not to be replicated. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 41] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Admission | |-----------+---------->| Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | Multicast (*) | | | Replication | | | | Control (M2) | | Mcast Grey Flow |<------------------| | not replicated x | | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation not activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 13: Admission Control Reject with NAS Response The Multicast Admission Control message M1 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 92 - Multicast Admission Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by AN o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Add * R = 0 * O = 0 * the multicast flow for which the IGMP join was received by AN= (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.4). Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 42] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M1 is illustrated below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=92 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0004 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0x01 |0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ The Multicast Replication Control message M2 contains: o an ANCP Header with: * Message-Type = 90 - Multicast Replication Control * Result= 0x00 * Transaction-ID = Transaction-ID maintained by NAS Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 43] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 o a Target TLV identifying the AN Port o a Command TLV containing: * a Command Code = Admission Control Reject (since in our example the flow is rejected by NAS because of bandwidth admission control and not because of conditional access) * R= 0 (since in our example the flow resources have not been admitted by NAS) * O = 0 (since in our example flow accounting is not required) * the multicast flow (192.0.2.1, 233.252.2.4) * a Request-Source-IP sub-TLV containing the IGMP join source IP (192.0.2.100). The Multicast Admission Control message M2 is illustrated below: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 44] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=90 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0010 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x1000 (Target) | Target TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID 0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0xTBD (Command) TLV | Command-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cmd Code=0xTBD|0 0 1 | Command Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Source: 192.0.2.1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Mcast Flow : 233.252.2.4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ |Type = (Request-S-IP) sub-TLV | Request-S-IP sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AddrFamily 01 | EncType 0x0 | Source : 192.0.2.100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+--+ 6.2. Example Flows For Bandwidth Delegation As noted in Section 4.1.1, the operation of bandwidth delegation is supplemental to the operation of request processing in the absence of bandwidth delegation. Thus the same flows shown in the previous section continue to hold, except that the AN does multicast call admission before doing grey and white list processing. The example flows of this section are therefore limited to the incremental operations of bandwidth delegation. They include initial provisioning, a successful request from the AN for an increase in delegated bandwidth, an autonomous transfer of the borrowed bandwidth back to the NAS, and the initiation of the bandwidth reset procedure (Section 3.9) by the NAS when it finds that the amount of delegated bandwidth passed by the AN is larger than its current view of that amount. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 45] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 6.2.1. Activation and Provisioning of Delegated Bandwidth Activation of bandwidth delegation occurs at the level of the AN as a whole and is done by including in the Provisioning message a Bandwidth-Delegation-Control TLV in the Provisioning message with the E-flag set to 1. The corresponding message flow is illustrated in Figure 14 . +----------+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN | | NAS | +----------+ | Gateway | +-----+ +-----+ | +---------+ | | | | | | | | |(M1) Provisioning | | | | (Mcast S Prof name, | | | | White List, | | | | Grey List, | | | | Black List, | | | | Bw Del Activated) | | | |<--------------------| Figure 14: Provisioning AN with White/Grey/Black Lists for Conditional Access In place of the message content shown in Figure 9 we have the following content within the Provisioning message (illustrating provisioning of a multicast service profile containing a grey list with a catch-all statement - i.e., match on any source and any group address) : Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 46] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=93 | 0x00 | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier = 0008 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Type | Mcast-Service-Prof TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0001 | sub-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Multicast service profile name ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-TLV Type = 0x0003 | sub-TLV Length = 0x06 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP ver = 0x00 | List length = 0x02 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Grp PLen=0x00 | Src PLen=0x00 | Padding = 0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Band-Del-Control | TLV Length = 0x04 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1| Reserved = 0x00 | Reserved = 0x00 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 15 Once bandwidth delegation has been activated, the NAS provisions the amount of delegated bandwidth for each access line (unless it decides to rely on default values pre-configured on the AN). This requires a Port Management message with a Bandwidth-Allocation TLV. The same Port Management message may be used to provision other information, such as the multicast service profile name applicable to the access line. The information flow is therefore similar to that in Figure 10 but illustrated more precisely in Figure 16. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 47] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN | | NAS | +----------+ | Gateway | +-----+ +-----+ | +---------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | DSL Synch. | | | |--------------------->| | | | |(M1)PORT_UP(Port ID) | | | |-------------------->| | | | (*) | | |(M2) PORT_MNGT | | | | (Port ID, | | | |Mcast S Profile Name,| | | |Initial Delegated Bw)| | | |<--------------------| (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 16: Provisioning of Initial Delegated Bandwidth to AN Port The content of the Port Management message M2 is illustrated below assuming an initial delegated bandwidth of 8000 kbits/s: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 48] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | Msg Type = 32 |Rslt =1| Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port Session Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Event Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| Duration | Func = 8 | X-Func = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Event Flags | Flow Control Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |x|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| Msg Type = 32 | Tech Type = 5 | Block Len = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | # of TLVs = 2 | Ext Block length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = 0x01 | Access-Loop-Cct-ID length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access-Loop-Circuit-ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Bandwidth-Alloc | TLV length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated Bandwidth = 8000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 17: Port Management Message Allocating Delegated Bandwidth 6.2.2. Admission Control of White Flow Without Change in Delegated Bandwidth The message flow in Figure 18 illustrates the message flow for admission of a new flow matching the White List when bandwidth delegation is activated and the AN has sufficient unused bandwidth within the delegated bandwidth for the new flow. In that case, no ANCP message needs to be exchanged. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 49] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(White-Fl) | | |-----------+---------->| | | | | | | Mcast White-Fl | | |<======================| | | | | | White-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in White List (Bandwidth Delegation activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 18: Admission Control without change in Delegated Bandwidth 6.2.3. Admission Control of White Flow with Increase in Delegated Bandwidth The message flow in Figure 19 illustrates the message flow for admission of a new flow matching the White List when bandwidth delegation is activated and the AN does not have sufficient unused bandwidth within the delegated bandwidth for the new flow. The flow illustrates the case where the AN requests a sufficiently larger delegated bandwidth and where that request is accepted by the NAS. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 50] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(White-Fl) | Bw Reallocation | |-----------+---------->| Request (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | (*) | | | Bw Transfer (M2) | | Mcast White-Fl |<------------------| |<======================| | | | | | White-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in White List (Bandwidth Delegation activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 19: Admission Control of White Flow with Increase of Bandwidth Delegation Suppose that when the new Join is received, the AN had already committed all the 8000 kbits/s of its delegated amount to established multicast flows and the received Join request requires another 2000 kbits/s. The AN issues a Bandwidth Reallocation Request message M1 where the Required Delegated Bandwidth value is set in order to acquire this amount of additional bandwidth. Since the request is expressed in terms of total delegated bandwidth, the Required Delegated Bandwidth value is set by the AN to 10000 kbits/s. Suppose that the AN is configured with a local policy that causes it to request enough for one extra channel as a Preferred Delegated Bandwidth. Then, the Preferred Delegated Bandwidth is set to 12000 kbits/s. This Bandwidth Reallocation Request message M1 has the following format: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 51] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 94 |Rslt=0 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | AN-allocated Transaction Identifier=100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Request | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Required Delegated Bandwidth = 10000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preferred Delegated Bandwidth = 12000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 20: Example Bandwidth Reallocation Request Message In response to this request, we assume that the NAS is willing to grant the full preferred amount. (It could have granted any value between 10000 and 12000, or it could have rejected the request.) The Bandwidth Transfer message M2 sent as a response indicates that the new delegated bandwidth amount is 12000 kbits/s, as shown in the next figure. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 52] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 95 |Rslt=3 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier=100 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Alloc | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated Bandwidth = 12000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 21: Example Bandwidth Transfer Message (Success Response) 6.2.4. Admission Control of Grey Flow Without Change in Delegated Bandwidth Figure 22 illustrates the message flow for admission of a new flow matching the Grey List when bandwidth delegation is activated and the AN has sufficient unused bandwidth within the delegated bandwidth for the new flow. The flow is similar to the flow shown in Figure 11 for the case without bandwidth delegation. The key difference is that with bandwidth delegation: o the AN performs bandwidth check before issuing the Admission Control message M1 to the NAS o the NAS sets the R flag to 0 in the Command TLV within the Multicast Replication Control message M2 to indicate that the NAS has not reserved bandwidth for that flow (since it relies on the AN to do so via bandwidth delegation). Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 53] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | | |-----------+---------->| | | | | Admission | | | | Control (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | Multicast | | | | Replication (*) | | | Control (M2) | | | | (R=0) | | | |<------------------| | Mcast Grey-Fl | | |<======================| | | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 22: Admission Control of Grey Flow Without Change of Delegated Bandwidth 6.2.5. Admission Control of Grey Flow with Increase in Delegated Bandwidth The message flow in Figure 23 illustrates the message flow for admission of a new flow matching the Grey List when bandwidth delegation is activated and the AN does not have sufficient unused bandwidth within the delegated bandwidth for the new flow. The flow illustrates the case where the AN requests a sufficiently larger delegated bandwidth and where that request is accepted by the NAS. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 54] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<---------->| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | Join(Grey-Fl) | Bw Reallocation | |-----------+---------->| Request (M1) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | (*) | | | Bw Transfer (M2) | | | |<------------------| | | | | | | | Admission | | | | Control (M3) | | | |------------------>| | | | | | | | Multicast | | | | Replication (*) | | | Control (M4) | | | |<------------------| | Mcast Grey-Fl | | |<======================| | | | | | Grey-Fl : Multicast Flow matching an entry in Grey List (Bandwidth Delegation activated on AN) (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 23: Admission Control of Grey Flow with Increase of Delegated Bandwidth 6.2.6. Failed Autonomous Bandwidth Transfer With Reset Suppose the AN decides after some period of time that it should return 2000 kbits/s of the 4000 kbits/s that it acquired from the NAS in a previous transaction but have since not been unused. It therefore issues a Bandwidth Transfer message of its own. This message differs from the message in Figure 21 in two ways. First, because this is an autonomous transfer rather than a response, the Result field in the header is set to Ignore (0x0). Secondly, the Delegated Bandwidth is reduced to 10000 kbits/s. Now suppose that somehow the NAS forgot that it passed an additional 4000 kbits/s to the AN. Thus its current view of the amount of Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 55] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 delegated bandwidth is 8000 kbits/s. The 10000 kbits/s appearing in the Bandwidth Transfer message is higher than this, so there is clearly a loss of synchronization between the NAS and the AN as to their respective view of the current delegated bandwidth. The NAS chooses to initiate the reset procedure, perhaps because it is close to committing all of its available video bandwidth for unicast service. As the initial step in this procedure, it issues a Multicast Status message indicating that a reset of the delegated amount is required. This is shown in the following figure. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (0x88-0C) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub |MessageType=91 | 0x4 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Status-info-TLV=TBD | Status-TLV-Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Rslt Code = xx | Cmd No = 1 | Error Message Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Message (padded to 4) if Length > 0 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Alloc | TLV Length = 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount = 8000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Result Code field within the Status-Info TLV contains the value: delegated bandwidth reset required (0xTBD). Figure 24: Example Initiation of Delegated Bandwidth Reset The NAS stops processing video service requests for the given access line when it sends this message. Similarly, the AN stops processing multicast video service requests when it receives the message. [To think about: can service requests that release bandwidth be safely Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 56] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 processed? Probably.] The next step is up to the NAS: it sends a Bandwidth Delegation Query Request message to the AN. The Result field in the header is set to Ignore (0x0) as usual for multicast- related messages. The Target TLV is a copy of the one received in the original Bandwidth Transfer message. The message is shown in the following figure: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 96 |Rslt=0 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 25: Example Delegated Bandwidth Query Request Message The AN returns a Delegated Bandwidth Query Response message showing that it believes that the amount of delegated bandwidth is 10000 kbits/s and it has committed 8000 kbits/s of it. The Result field in the header shows Success (0x3) to distinguish the response. [... in case we decide to make the query bidirectional ...] Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 57] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vers | Sub | MsgTyp = 96 |Rslt=3 | Code = 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Partition ID | Transaction Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |I| SubMessage Number | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLV Type = Target | Target-TLV Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Access-Loop-Circuit-ID=0x0001 | Circuit-ID Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Access Loop Circuit ID ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |TLV Type = Bandwidth-Request | TLV Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Delegated amount = 10000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Committed amount = 8000 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 26: Example Delegated Bandwidth Query Response Message The NAS decides to reset the delegated bandwidth amount to 8000 kbits/s. It issues a Port Management message looking exactly like the one in Figure 17. Once it sends this message, it resumes processing service requests for the access line concerned. Similarly, the AN resumes request processing after it receives the Port Management message and resets its view of the current delegated bandwidth. In the short run, this means that it will have to ask for more bandwidth if it receives another Join request. [It seems reasonable that the AN would not do so for a period of time after a reset or a response to a Bandwidth Reallocation Request that grants less than the preferred amount. Should we establish a timer?] The overall message flow for this failed autonomous bandwidth transfer with reset is illustrated in Figure 27. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 58] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +----------+ +-------+ +-----+ ANCP +-----+ |Subscriber| | Home | | AN |<------------>| NAS | +----------+ |Gateway| +-----+ +-----+ | +-------+ | | | | | | | | | Bw Transfer (M1) | | | |-------------------->| | | | | | | | Multicast | | | | Status (M2) | | | | (Del Bw Reset Rqd) | | | |<--------------------| | | | | | | | Delegated Bw | | | | Query request (M3) | | | |<--------------------| | | | | | | | Delegated Bw | | | |Query response (M4) | | | | (Committed Bw) | | | |-------------------->| | | | (*) | | |(M5) PORT_MNGT | | | | (Port ID, | | | |Mcast S Profile Name,| | | |Initial Delegated Bw)| | | |<--------------------| | | | | (*) The NAS may optionally seek direction from an external Autorization/Policy Server Figure 27: Failed Autonomous Bandwidth Transfer with Reset Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 59] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 7. Security Considerations The security considerations of ANCP are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] and in [I-D.ietf-ancp-security-threats]. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 60] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 8. IANA Considerations [This document defines new ANCP messages, TLVs, sub-TLVs, error codes and Capability Types. The corresponding IANA considerations will be specified when the proposed extensions are folded into the ANCP protocol document.] This document defines the following additional values within the GSMPv3 Message Type Name Space registry: +--------------------------------+--------+---------------+ | Message | Number | Source | +--------------------------------+--------+---------------+ | Multicast Admission Control | 92 | This document | | | | | | Provisioning | 93 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth Reallocation Request | 94 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth Transfer | 95 | This document | | | | | | Delegated Bandwidth Query | 96 | This document | +--------------------------------+--------+---------------+ This document defines the following additional values within the ANCP Multicast Status-Info Result Code Registry: +------------------------------------+--------+---------------+ | Status | Number | Reference | +------------------------------------+--------+---------------+ | Invalid preferred bandwidth amount | 0x11 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth delegation not activated | 0x12 | This document | | | | | | Delegated bandwidth reset required | 0x13 | This document | +------------------------------------+--------+---------------+ This document defines the following additional values within the ANCP TLV Type Registry: Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 61] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 +--------------------------------+-----------+---------------+ | TLV Name | Type Code | Reference | +--------------------------------+-----------+---------------+ | Multicast-Service-Profile | 0x13 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Delegation-Control | 0x14 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Allocation | 0x15 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Request | 0x16 | This document | | | | | | Bandwidth-Status | 0x17 | This document | | | | | | Multicast-Service-Profile-Name | 0x18 | This document | +--------------------------------+-----------+---------------+ Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 62] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 9. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Wojciech Dec for providing useful input to this document. Robert Rennison had a major role in shaping the definition of the Multicast-Service-Profile TLV. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 63] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 10. References 10.1. Normative References [I-D.ancp-mc-extensions] Champagne, P., Dec, W., Wadhwa, S., Cnodder, S., and R. Maglione, "Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP", draft-ancp-mc-extensions-00 (work in progress), July 2008. [I-D.ietf-ancp-framework] Ooghe, S., Voigt, N., Platnic, M., Haag, T., and S. Wadhwa, "Framework and Requirements for an Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-framework-08 (work in progress), February 2009. [I-D.ietf-ancp-protocol] Wadhwa, S., Moisand, J., Subramanian, S., Haag, T., Voigt, N., and R. Maglione, "Protocol for Access Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-04 (work in progress), November 2008. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 10.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ancp-security-threats] Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. Cnodder, "Security Threats and Security Requirements for the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)", draft-ietf-ancp-security-threats-07 (work in progress), March 2009. [I-D.morin-mboned-igmpmld-error-feedback] Morin, T. and B. Haberman, "IGMP/MLD Error Feedback", draft-morin-mboned-igmpmld-error-feedback-02 (work in progress), November 2008. [IANAAEA] "http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers", 2005. Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 64] Internet-Draft ANCP Multicast Extensions March 2009 Authors' Addresses 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 Roberta Maglione Telecom Italia Via Reiss Romoli 274 Torino 10148 Italy Phone: Email: roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it Tom Taylor Huawei Technologies 1852 Lorraine Ave Ottawa, Ontario K1H 6Z8 Canada Phone: +1 613 680 2675 Email: tom.taylor@rogers.com Le Faucheur, et al. Expires September 10, 2009 [Page 65]