seserv workshop manos dramitinos - tussle analysis from etics project
DESCRIPTION
Tussle analysis for FP7 research project ETICS case studiesTRANSCRIPT
Tussle Analysis for FP7 Project ETICS Case Studies
Manos Dramitinos [[email protected]] Athens University of Economics and Business
SESERV Workshop, Athens, Greece
January 31st, 2012
Introduction
• Internet: Multiple technologies and stakeholders, conflicting interests– Choices, Goals, Strategies, Policies– Dynamic ecosystem
• “Design for tussle”
• SESERV has defined a systematic approach for the analysis and assessment of socio-economic tussles in the Internet– ETICS case study
(Future) Internet Ecosystem
The SESERV Tussle Analysis Methodology
The ETICS Approach (I)
• Support performance-sensitive inter-carrier services through network interconnections of assured quality– Technically: support automated E2E ASQ– Economically: Market enabler for services
The ETICS Approach (II)
• ASQ products: Novel IC products with assured performance in terms of business and technical attributes, described in SLA– Variants of ASQ goods offered by the ETICS “community”
• “Bundling”, stitching and nesting• Technology agnostic, not tied to a certain business model
TransitNSP
Edge NSP
Transport NSP
ETICS requirements and specification scope
Externalactor
Business Customer
I nformationSP
E7
ETICS Provider
E2E1
E6
TransitNSP
Edge NSP
E3
E4
E7
Transport NSP
E5
E4
Distributed Pull Model
ISP-1
ISP-2
Customer
Customer buys from ISP-1 an E2E service to Content Provider and expects a certain quality
ISP-3
A
B C
DF
H
E
G
SLA among ISP 1 and ISP-2 for a path between C & H
SLA among ISP 2 and ISP 3 for a path between F & H
Content Provider
Case Study A: ASQ Goods and ISPs Competition
ISP 2 ISP 1
ISP 3
Transit
Peering
Content Provider
Peering
Allowing the control of major parameters of ASQ interconnection is important for promoting collaboration that is mutually beneficial
What are the necessary business conditions for QoS-aware interconnection?
congestion!
Tussle Evolution
Functionality: Routing & Traffic Engineering
ISP-1 feels unfair
Traffic is optimized selfishly
Stable routing
ISP-2
ISP-2
Tuss
le o
utco
me
Stak
ehol
ders
’ st
rate
gies
/pol
icie
sSt
akeh
olde
rs’
stra
tegi
es/p
olic
ies
Tuss
le o
utco
me
Traffic is optimized selfishly
ISP-1
What if an ASQ good is used by ISP-2 to bypass the Best-Effort peering link for all traffic?
?
What if ISPs could control major properties of ASQ goods?
ISP-1
What if ISP-1 stopped offering that ASQ?
Support for best-effort connectivity only ISP-2 feels unfair
ISPs perform traffic engineering for optimizing network usage
Functionality: Network Service composition
Introduction of ASQ goods make routing more stable and simpler
Unstable outcome
Stable outcome Evolves
AffectsLegend
Initial state
Functionality
?
time
ASQ Configuration
ETICS ISP 2 ETICS ISP 1
ETICS ISP 3
Free-of-chargeASQ
Charged ASQ
Content Provider
Case Study B: SLA Monitoring incentives for backup ASQ provisioning
• SLA Monitoring checks conformance of service delivered to the contract terms– Required also if all the ETICS community actors are trusted
• Backup capacity: needed to deal with network failures – …and avoid SLA violations in the ETICS context because either new
path is not good enough or because traffic arrived from a different ingress point in the ISP network
– Incentivized by monitoring due to penalties for violations• … or free-riding
• Tussle for responsibility: What technology decisions would lead to (un-)fair allocation of SLA violation penalties?– Three candidate schemes examined by ETICS, a centralized and two
distributed (coordinated sampling and active flow technology)
Distributed Hierarchical Monitoring
• Each ISP collects raw data from probes (BRs)• Data sampling to keep the operational cost low (E2E)• Monitoring data stored per ISP at proxies• If SLA violation, a collector queries the proxies and checks
the validity of SLA
Customer
ISP-1
ISP-2
ISP-3
A
B C
DF
H
E
G
Content Provider
Xrouter/probe
proxy
collector
ETICS collector
Tussle evolution for ETICS Network Service Delivery functionality
Functionality: Network Service delivery
Source & Destination ISPs
contribute less to SLA penalties
Dest. ISP
Fairpenalties
Tuss
le o
utco
me
Stak
ehol
ders
’ st
rate
gies
/pol
icie
s
SourceISP
What if (sampled) monitored packets are known in advance ?
?
Transit ISPs contribute less to SLA penalties
BrokerIntroduction of inter-domain ASQ goods with no adequate monitoring of individual ISPs
Destination ISP under provisionsbackup ASQ goods
Transit ISP
?
What if Broker signals to all ISPs which packets to probe during service provisioning?
Conclusions - References
• Tussle analysis for two sample ETICS cases
• More interesting cases to be investigated
• Useful insight for the market and technology configuration– Crucial for the adoption of new technologies
• References:– www.seserv.org– www.ict-etics.eu– C. Kalogiros, C. Courcoubetis, G. D. Stamoulis, M. Dramitinos, O.
Dugeon, “Internet Interconnection Assured Quality Services: Issues and Strategic Impact”, Submitted to Future Network & Mobile Summit 2012