1. SESERV Socio-Economic Services for European Research Projects http://www.seserv.org European Seventh Framework CSA FP7-2010-ICT-258138Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS, TCPCostas Kalogiros (AUEB)The interplay of economics andtechnology for the Future InternetSESERV WorkshopAthens, Greece, January 31, 2012 2011 The SESERV Consortium 1

2. Mistyping a URL she receives a webpage full whoImagine an inexperienced user ofadvertisementsmistypes the twitter.com URL and instead of getting an error in Greek! (twitterw.com does not exist) 2012 The SESERV Consortium 2

3. Tussle analysis case study: name resolution DNS registry Increased cost A DNS registry for End-Usersstrategies/policies introduces a wildcard ISPs route all packets destined to Stakeholders DNS record for .com Tussle outcome DNS registrys redirection server into a black hole ISP ? (neutral entity) Increased cost End-User Functionality: Naming & Addressing for DNS registries Traffic is optimizedstrategies/policies ISP-2 selfishly Tussle outcome Stakeholders ISPs perform traffic engineering New BGP advertisements for optimizing cause more instability network usage ISP-1 Traffic is optimized Functionality: Routing & Traffic Engineering selfishly 2012 The SESERV Consortium 3

4. Tussle analysis case study: bandwidth sharing peer-to-peer Increased cost for p2p users configure (p2p) users applications to open p2p applications interactive users multiple TCPstrategies/policies configured to Stakeholders connections for the ? Tussle outcome perform traffic same session ISPs throttle obfuscation bandwidth of p2p applications by using ISP DPI technology. What if ISPs deploy (neutral p2p congestion exposure entity) applications ? technologies & motivate multiple congestion pricing schemes? interactive TCP connections for users the same session Functionality: bandwidth sharing Increased cost for heavy users Increased cost for ISP VoIP providers Tussle outcome Increased cost Functionality: VoIP service delivery for ISPs 2012 The SESERV Consortium 4

5. Focus Groups Each participant: choose a stakeholder role that he/she is going to play during the Focus Group, and will express his/her interests A project representative will demonstrate the proposed technology using 1 or 2 case studies After each presentation: all stakeholders will be able to express how they perceive the presented future technology, and examine any conflicts of interest among different stakeholders and how these would evolve, as well as identify any critical control points 2012 The SESERV Consortium 5

6. Future Internet Stakeholder RolesIndustry Standardization ConsortiumsConsumer Electronics Manufacturers Network Element Vendors Edge ISP Application Developers Transit ISP SDK Publishers Content Distribution Networks Research Projects Directory Service Providers Technology Connectivity Application Service Providers Makers Providers Brokers (Market Place Providers) Professionals Amateurs Communication Providers Content Information Gaming Providers Owners Providers Financial Service Providers Internet Retailers Regulators Policy Makers Infrastructure Administration Authorities Providers Researchers Network Exchange Points Security Agencies Last Mile Providers Users Residential Network Component Dark Fiber Provider Providers Business Consumers Gateway Providers Sensor Operators Roamers Venue owners End-users Cloud Operators 2012 The SESERV Consortium 6

7. More Information http://www.seserv.org getinvolved@seserv.org http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=3870856 http://www.twitter.com/seserv DNS case study based on: Harald Alvestrand, Architectural Concerns on the Use of DNS Wildcards, IAB, September 2003. TCP case study based on: Bob Briscoe, Flow rate fairness: dismantling a religion, SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 37, 2 (March 2007), 63-74. 2012 The SESERV Consortium 7