Economic Traffic Management (ETM) Mechanisms – Selected View

© 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 1

Economic Traffic Management (ETM) Mechanisms – Selected View

SSimple Economic imple Economic MManagement Approaches anagement Approaches oof f OOverlay verlay TTraffic in raffic in HHeterogeneous eterogeneous IInternet nternet TTopologiesopologies

European Seventh Framework STREP FP7-2007-ICT-216259European Seventh Framework STREP FP7-2007-ICT-216259

UZH, DOCOMO, TUD, AUEB, PrimeTel, AGH, ICOM, UniWue, TIDUZH, DOCOMO, TUD, AUEB, PrimeTel, AGH, ICOM, UniWue, TID

Fabio Hecht, UZHFabio Hecht, UZH(on behalf of SmoothIT)(on behalf of SmoothIT)

October 20, 2010October 20, 2010Brussels, BelgiumBrussels, Belgium


Basics and Motivation Use of economic mechanisms for controlling, managing

network traffic of overlays at early stages:

SmoothIT results show already that such mechanisms do have the important property of scalability and effectiveness! – Situation-dependent ETMs lead to a more efficient network operation– ETMs generate a higher value (QoE) for its customers.

In managing the traffic created and routed through their networks, today’s ISPs are offered by SmoothIT methodologies suitable for modern traffic/service profiles– E.g., peer-to-peer traffic is treated according to ETM approaches.– Applicable to traffic of different P2P applications

Economic Traffic Management (ETM)


Triple Win All ETM mechanisms aim at achieving TripleWin

– Overlay traffic is optimized beneficially for all three stakeholders: ISPs, overlay providers, and users

Incentives for operators (i.e. ISPs)– Monetary: reduce overlay traffic and inter-domain traffic– Traffic management: less congested links, better performance– Reputation: keep customers, distinguish from other operators

Incentives for overlay providers– Performance: Active role in traffic mgmt increases service quality– Reputation: increased user base due to better performing services

Incentives for users– Performance: Increased service quality, e.g., reliability, RTT, BW– Monetary: lower price for network access


ETM Classification and Synergies High potential for

synergies Progressive

development of approaches possible

Incremental enhancement of architecture possible


ETM Mechanisms Ported to Trials

1. BGP-Based Locality Promotion (BGP-Loc):ISP provides proximity-related recommendation to overlay applications, which is used to optimize traffic.

2. Insertion of ISP-Owned Peers (IoP):Resourceful entity enhancing both traffic locality and QoE within an ISP.

3. Promotion of Highly Active Peers (HAP):Boosts peers which contribute the most in order to achieve similar results as IoPs with little investment in infrastructure.


SmoothIT Information Service (SIS)

Deployment of SIS components in the ISPs’ network– To convey information between overlay and underlay

Client-Server architecture Overlay applications interact with SIS in order to select

“better” peers, e.g. local peers, IoPs or HAPs.– Reducing ISPs costs and improving QoE of users

SIS

PP P

P PP P

SIS

ISP A ISP B

SIS protocol

P Peer / Overlay appl.


SmoothIT Information Service (SIS)

IoP ETMS

Underlay

Overlay

SIS

HAP

(Aggregate) underlay metrics

Peers’ (abstracted)overlay status

Popular swarms

Best peers

QoS enhancements

QoE improvements

Cost reductionRevenue increase

SIS is the core of the ETM System (ETMS), which can lead to TripleWin.


Simulated Network Topology

Hub AS 1

Initialseeder SIS

Transit AS

Hub AS 2

Stub AS 1…10 Stub AS 11…20

Peeringlink

Transitlink

Inter-ASlink


BGP-Loc At application: task is to discover neighbors to

download from and select neighbors to upload to– “Unchoked” neighbors receive data– “Choked” neighbors do not receive data.

Used BitTorrent (file sharing) and Tribler (video streaming, based on BitTorrent)– Regular BitTorrent (regBT):

• TFT slots: upload to peers that have provided the most• optimistic unchoking slot: upload to a random peer

– BNS: Biased Neighbor Selection• Peers prefer to download from local peers from SIS

– BOU: Biased Optimistic Unchoking• Peers prefer to upload to local peers from SIS


Access inter-AS0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Bottleneck Type

Do

wn

loa

d T

ime

s (m

in)

regBTBOUBNSBNS&BOU

BGP-Loc: Simulation ResultsHomogeneous Scenario

Mean traffic (Mbyte/s)

Mean download times (min)

Access inter-AS0

10

20

30

40

50

Bottleneck Type

Ba

nd

wid

th (

MB

/s) Intra-AS

Peering LinksTransit LinksregBTBOUBNSBNS&BOU

BitTorrent: Bottleneck Types

Inter-AS

Inter-AS

Inter-ASInter-AS


Mean traffic (Mbyte/s)

Mean stalling times (s)

Tribler: Bottleneck Types

Access Core0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Bottleneck Type

Sta

ll T

imes

(se

c)

regBTBOUBNSBNS&BOU

Access Core0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Bottleneck Type

Ban

dwid

th (M

B/s

) Intra-ASPeering LinksTransit LinksregBTBOUBNSBNS&BOU

Inter-ASInter-ASInter-AS

Inter-AS

BGP-Loc: Simulation Results Homogeneous Scenario (2)


BGP-Loc: Simulation Results Heterogeneous Scenario

Mean upload traffic for different ASes with different populations

(Mbyte/s)

Mean download times (min)

Heterogeneous peer distribution

0 5 10 15 208

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

AS ID

Dow

nloa

d T

imes

(m

in)

RefBUBNSBNSBU

0 5 10 15 200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

AS ID

Upl

oad

Ban

dwid

th (

MB

/s)

RefBUBNSBNSBU


BGP-Loc: Evaluation Summary Bottleneck: access links Win–No-lose

– Download times remain unaffected

– Savings in inter-AS bandwidth are achieved

Bottleneck: inter-domain links Win–Win– Still some inter-AS bandwidth can be saved

– Download/stalling times can be improved significantly

The efficiency of locality promotion is higher in ASes having larger fractions of the swarm

The performance improvement further increases with the fraction of locality-promoting peers


Insertion of ISP-owned Peers (IoP) Motivation: Sole locality may not improve peers’

performance. We can exploit overlay functioning to localize traffic and achieve Win-Win

Approach: Insert an ISP-owned peer (overlay entity) provisioned with higher access capacity

Impact: Improvement of peers’ performance and reduction of inbound traffic

Innovation: Transparency, no interception required. Variety of policies


Promotion of Highly Active Peers (HAP) Motivation: Increase the access capacity of very active

regular peers instead of inserting ISP-owned entities

Approach: Exploitation of ISP’s NGN capabilities to change the access profile of certain users

Impact: Give peers the incentive to serve as seeds. Localize traffic while improving peers’ performance.

Innovation: Fully innovative mechanism, with NGN. Extra resources directly given to peers.


Summary and Conclusions Dedicated management of overlay traffic is

necessary– Due to smoothing large amounts of overlay traffic– Due to the minimization of high(er) costs for ISPs

SmoothIT architectural design and impl. completed – SmoothIT Information Service (SIS)

• Deployed in networks of ISPs• Provides information to overlay applications• Optimizes traffic and achieves the Triple Win situation

Many sets of simulative evaluations in place SmoothIT participates at IETF in ALTO (3 drafts) Trials with selected ETM mechanisms are running

currently in a real network


Thank you for your attention!

Thanks to all SmoothIT’s project partners:

UZH, DOCOMO, TUD, AUEB, PrimeTel, AGH, ICOM, UniWue, TID

Technology

Economic Traffic Management (ETM) Mechanisms – Selected View