TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

Vacation Planning

RIMINI

PORTOFINO

SORRENTO

TAORMINA

Randomly picking from a list of nice locationsdoes not sound like a brilliant idea...

Knowing where they are...… and where you are...

… helps a big deal!

As well as a map...… and knowledge ofthe congestion points

| NOME AUTORE

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

Client/Server vs. Peer-to-peer

ISP6

ISP2

ISP3

ISP4ISP5

ISP1

wolverine.torrent

ISP6

ISP2

ISP3

ISP4ISP5

ISP1

http://www.google.com

www.l.google.com209.85.129.147

www.l.google.com64.233.167.104

1 source, 1 destination

Server-side load balancing (DNS, Redir...)

Network-based route selection (BGP, MPLS...)

Application-side load balancing

1 source, N destinations

Application-based path selection

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

Peer Selection like Vacation Planning

ISP6

ISP2

ISP3

ISP4ISP5

ISP1wolverine.torrent

Common case: a peer in Madrid downloading a file from a peer in Tokyo while the same file is available in Barcelona

Bad for the user: poor performance

Bad for the ISP: transit costs

How can the Network help peers make better choices?

Providing information about topology, tomography, congestion, policies...

Providing a guidance service

Peer: I can choose among A, B, C, D, what should I do?

Network: try B first, then C, then A, then D

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) IETF WG

An open forum for discussing a win-win approach

ISPs: Telecom Italia, Comcast, Verizon, Telefonica (TID), Deutsche Telekom (TU-Berlin), China Mobile

Vendors: Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, NEC, Huawei, Juniper

Others: BitTorrent, Microsoft, NeuStar, Yale University, Pando Networks

Struggle between network and applications

Network wants to provide guidance (topology hiding)

Applications want to get plain information (privacy)

The outcome will likely be somewhere in the middle

If the solution won't allow topology hiding, ISPs won't deploy it (fail!)

If the solution will threat user privacy, applications won't use it (fail!)

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

Incentives to Succeed (from Comcast's P4P Field Trial)

30% to 80% reduction in transit costs

13% to 85% increase in download speed

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

Backup

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

ALTO – History

July 2007: “Can ISPs and P2P systems co-operate for improved performance?” V. Aggarwal, A. Feldmann, C. Scheideler (TU-Berlin / Deutsche Telekom)

March 2008: “Verizon reports P4P can slash P2P's impact on ISPs,” Newsfactor.com

May 2008: P2P Infrastructure Workshop (Boston, MA, USA)

July 2008: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization BoF (72nd IETF Meeting, Dublin, Ireland), arranged by Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom Italia

October 2008: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization IETF WG formed (Neustar, Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom Italia)

TELECOM ITALIA GROUP

ALTO – Deliverables and Side Activities

June 2009: Problem Statement document (RFC expected for 1/2010)

January 2010: Requirements document (RFC exp. 6/2010)

March 2010: Protocol specification (RFC exp. 9/2010)

July 2010: Server discovery mechanism (RFC exp. 1/2011)

P4P Field Trials with Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Telefonica

P4P technology is proposed in ALTO as a candidate solution

Various studies and analysis going on in ISPs and universities to quantify possible gain

Interesting results shared in IRTF P2P Research Group

Vendors pushing pre-standard solutions (Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Oversi, PeerApp)