Tussle Analysis for FP7 Project ETICS Case Studies

Manos Dramitinos [mdramit@aueb.gr] 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