RFC 9808 | CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisement E | June 2025 |
Ryan, et al. | Standards Track | [Page] |
The Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Capacity Capability Advertisement Extensions define a set of additional Capability Objects that provide information about current downstream CDN (dCDN) utilization and specified usage limits to the delegating upstream CDN (uCDN) in order to inform traffic delegation decisions.¶
This document supplements the CDNI Capability Objects, defined in RFC 8008 as part of the Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement Interface (FCI), with two additional Capability Objects: FCI.CapacityLimits and FCI.Telemetry.¶
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9808.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
While delegating traffic from an upstream CDN (uCDN) to a downstream CDN (dCDN), it is important to ensure that an appropriate amount of traffic is delegated. To achieve that, this specification defines a feedback mechanism to inform the delegator how much traffic may be delegated. The traffic level information provided by that interface will be consumed by services, such as a request router, to inform that service's traffic delegation decisions. The provided information is advisory and does not represent a guarantee, commitment, or reservation of capacity.¶
This document defines and registers CDNI Payload Types (as defined in Section 7.1 of [RFC8006]). These Payload types are used for Capability Objects, which are added to those defined in Section 4 of [RFC8008].¶
The following term is used throughout this document:¶
Additionally, this document reuses the terminology defined in [RFC6707]. Specifically, the following CDNI acronyms are used:¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
To enable information exchange between a uCDN and a dCDN regarding acceptable levels of traffic delegation, the following process has been defined:¶
In normal operation, a uCDN will communicate with a dCDN, via an interface, to collect and understand any limits that a dCDN has set forth for traffic delegation from a uCDN. These limits will come in the form of metrics such as bits per second, requests per second, etc. These limits can be thought of as Not to Exceed (NTE) limits.¶
The dCDN should provide access to a telemetry source of near real-time metrics that the uCDN can use to track current usage. The uCDN should compare its current usage to the limits the dCDN has put forth and adjust traffic delegation decisions accordingly to keep current usage under the specified limits.¶
In summary, the dCDN will inform the uCDN of the amount of traffic that may be delegated. Additionally, it will provide a telemetry source aligned with this limit, allowing the uCDN to monitor its current usage against the advertised value. Having a limit and a corresponding telemetry source creates an unambiguous definition understood by both parties.¶
Limits that are communicated from the dCDN to the uCDN should be considered valid based on the Time to Live (TTL) provided by a mechanism of the underlying transport, e.g., an HTTP Cache-Control header. The intention is that the limits would have a long-lived TTL and would represent a reasonable peak utilization limit that the uCDN should target. If the underlying transport does not provide a mechanism for the dCDN to communicate the TTL of the limits, the TTL should be communicated through an out-of-band mechanism agreed upon between the dCDN and uCDN.¶
Section 5 of [RFC8008] describes the FCI Capability Advertisement Object, which contains a CDNI Capability Object as well as the capability object type (a CDNI Payload Type). The section also defines the Capability Objects per such type. Below, we define two additional Capability Objects.¶
Note: In the following sections, the term "mandatory-to-specify" is used to convey which properties MUST be included when serializing a given capability object. When mandatory-to-specify is defined as a "Yes" for an individual property, it means that if the object containing that property is included in an FCI message, then the mandatory-to-specify property MUST be included.¶
The Telemetry Capability Object advertises a list of telemetry sources made available to the uCDN by the dCDN. In this document, telemetry data is being defined as near real-time aggregated metrics of dCDN utilization, such as bits per second egress, and is specific to the uCDN and dCDN traffic delegation relationship.¶
Telemetry data is uniquely defined by a source ID, a metric name, and the footprints that are associated with an FCI.Capability advertisement. When defining a CapacityLimit, the meaning of a limit might be ambiguous if the uCDN and dCDN are observing telemetry via different data sources. A dCDN-provided telemetry source that both parties reference serves as a non-ambiguous metric for use when comparing current usage to a limit.¶
Telemetry data is important for making informed traffic delegation decisions. Additionally, it is essential in providing visibility of traffic that has been delegated. In situations where there are multiple CDN delegations, a uCDN will need to aggregate the usage information from any dCDNs to which it delegated when asked to provide usage information, otherwise the traffic may seem unaccounted for.¶
Example: A Content Provider delegates traffic directly to a uCDN, and that uCDN delegates that traffic to a dCDN. When the Content Provider polls the uCDN telemetry interface, any of the traffic the uCDN delegated to the dCDN would become invisible to the Content Provider, unless the uCDN aggregates the dCDN telemetry with its own metrics.¶
sources¶
The Telemetry Source Object is made of an associated type, a list of exposed metrics, and type-specific configuration data.¶
id¶
type¶
metrics¶
configuration¶
At the time of this writing, the registry of valid Telemetry Source Types is limited to a single type: generic (see Section 3.2.1).¶
Source Type | Description |
---|---|
generic | An object that allows for advertisement of generic data sources |
The following shows an example of Telemetry Capability including two metrics for a source, that is scoped to a footprint.¶
{ "capabilities": [ { "capability-type": "FCI.Telemetry", "capability-value": { "sources": [ { "id": "capacity_metrics_region1", "type": "generic", "metrics": [ { "name": "egress_5m", "time-granularity": 300, "data-percentile": 50, "latency": 1500 }, { "name": "requests_5m", ... } ] } ] }, "footprints": [ <footprint objects> ] } ] }¶
The CapacityLimits Capability Object enables the dCDN to specify traffic delegation limits to a uCDN within an FCI.Capabilities advertisement. The limits specified by the dCDN will inform the uCDN on how much traffic may be delegated to the dCDN. The limits specified by the dCDN should be considered NTE limits. The limits should be based on near real-time telemetry data that the dCDN provides to the uCDN. In other words, for each limit that is advertised, there should also exist a telemetry source that provides current utilization data against the particular advertised limit.¶
limits¶
A CapacityLimit object is used to represent traffic limits for delegation from the uCDN towards the dCDN. The limit object is scoped to the footprint associated with the FCI capability advertisement encompassing this object. Limits MUST be considered using a logical "AND": A uCDN will need to ensure that all limits are considered rather than choosing only the most specific.¶
limit-type¶
id¶
maximum-hard¶
maximum-soft¶
current¶
telemetry-source¶
Below are listed the valid capacity limit-types registered in the "CDNI Capacity Limit Types" registry. The values specified here represent the types that were identified as being the most relevant metrics for the purposes of traffic delegation between CDNs.¶
Capacity Limit Type | Units |
---|---|
egress | Bits per second |
requests | Requests per second |
storage-size | Total bytes |
storage-objects | Count |
sessions | Count |
cache-size | Total bytes |
The CapacityLimitTelemetrySource Object refers to a specific metric within a Telemetry Source.¶
The following shows an example of an FCI.CapacityLimits object.¶
{ "capabilities": [ { "capability-type":"FCI.CapacityLimits", "capability-value":{ "limits":[ { "id":"capacity_limit_region1", "limit-type":"egress", "maximum-hard":50000000000, "maximum-soft":25000000000, "telemetry-source":{ "id":"capacity_metrics_region1", "metric":"egress_5m" } } ] }, "footprints":[ "<footprint objects>" ] } ] }¶
Per this document, IANA has registered two additional payload types in the "CDNI Payload Types" registry within the "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry group:¶
Payload Type | Reference |
---|---|
FCI.Telemetry | RFC 9808 |
FCI.CapacityLimits | RFC 9808 |
IANA has added the following new registry within the "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry group at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters>:¶
The registry follows the Specification Required policy as defined in [RFC8126]. The designated expert should consider the following guidelines when evaluating registration requests:¶
The following value has been registered:¶
Source Type | Reference |
---|---|
generic | RFC 9808 |
IANA has added the following new registry within the "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry group at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters>:¶
The registry follows the Specification Required policy as defined in [RFC8126]. The designated expert should consider the following guidelines when evaluating registration requests:¶
The following values have been registered:¶
Capacity Limit Type | Units | Reference |
---|---|---|
egress | Bits per second | RFC 9808 |
requests | Requests per second | RFC 9808 |
storage-size | Total bytes | RFC 9808 |
storage-objects | Count | RFC 9808 |
sessions | Count | RFC 9808 |
cache-size | Total bytes | RFC 9808 |
This specification is in accordance with the CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics. As such, it is subject to the security and privacy considerations as defined in Section 7 of [RFC8008].¶
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the members of the Streaming Video Technology Alliance [SVTA] Open Caching Working Group for their guidance, contribution, and review.¶