The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem William B. Norton Co-Founder and Chief...
-
Upload
ambrose-mcdowell -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem William B. Norton Co-Founder and Chief...
The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem
William B. Norton
Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison
Equinix, Inc.
Internet Researcher
• 90% with Internet Companies Engineers
• EQIX: Massive Carrier Neutral Colocation
• Lots of Blinking lights…
• Observe: documentation on HW&Protocols
• Lack of Operations documents
• Research How does Peering work?
White paper process..
Community Operations Research
• Ground Truth w/dozens of experts
• Write White Paper v0.1
• Walk community through WP for comments
• Revise White Paper into new version
• Present White Paper at conferences
• Solicit comments over lunches and dinners
White papers so far…
Internet Operations White Papers
1) “Interconnection Strategies for ISPs”2) “Internet Service Providers and Peering”3) “A Business Case for Peering”4) “The Art of Peering: The Peering
Playbook”5) “The Peering Simulation Game”6) “Do ATM-based Internet Exchanges
Make Sense Anymore?” Freely available. Send e-mail to [email protected]
New white Paper: The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem, Agenda…
Agenda
• Definitions to level set– Peering, Transit, ISPs– Synch Point here.
• Introduction to notion:“Peering Ecosystem”– Internet=Many Internet Regions each with– Tier 1 ISPs, Tier 2 ISPs, Content Providers
• Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem– 3 major evolutions
Def: Internet Service Provider
• Def: Internet Service Provider is an entity that sells access to the entire Internet. This service is often called “Internet Transit”
• Def: Transit is a business relationship whereby one entity sells access to the entire Internet.
Definition of Transit
1) ISP A buys Transit Service
Upstream Transit ProviderISP A
Upstream Transit Provider
Upstream Transit Provider
Upstream Transit
Providers
Def: Transit is the business relationship whereby one ISP
announces (sells) reachability to the *entire* Internet to a customer.
•$$$ ? Typically usage-based•Pricing ’04: $18-$200/Mbps•Volume based on 95th Percentile measure•Transit is Simple, Convenient:• Upstream handles the delivery of packets to the Internet by some meansUsage: “I’m purchasing transit from Level 3.”
3) Traffic Flows
INTERNET
NETWORKS
2) ReachabilityAnnouncement
Transit
0
50
100
150
200
2501 14 27 40 53 66 79 92 105
Traffic Exchanged (Mbps)
$/M
bp
s
Transit $/Mbps
Cost of Transit Traffic Exchange
2001 Pricing Sampling Range: $100-$1200/MbpsMy Financial Models used $388/Mbps
Source: 2004 Survey Avg. Range: $20-$400/Mbps 95th Percentile
Why Peer?
1/15/04 field spot quotes: GX: $65/Mbps, HE: $25/Mbps Cogent $20/Mbps UU: $45/Mbps, etc. varied commits 0-1000Mbps
Scaling at the Edge
Content Heavy ISP
Access Heavy ISP
UPSTREAMS
V
IGMBT
Streaming Media
56k 384k 1.5m
$$$
$$$
Broadcast.com: 100,000 concurrent unicast streams15 million streaming hrs/mo, 1300 Live events/day
Access
AOL+ DSL: 1,000/dayRoadrunner Cable Modems: 1M subscribers
Negotiate Peering with Upstream ISPsOr focus on peering with like-minded ISPs…
1 T1 consumer streaming 24/7 cost $388/mo in transit
Streaming:BroadcastTelephonyVideoMultimediaInteractiveGamingSPOT Events
Tier1 Equipment: $13B/’00 -> $42B/’04(Source: Infonetics)
The Zone: +1M gaming user/mo!
Seek transportInterconnection $
x
Why Peer? Motivations for Peering• Financial: Reduce load on expensive Transit
service• Traffic src/dest• Measure vs Intuit• Usage-based Billing
• Engineering: Lower latency
1st Stage of Peering:Top 10 destination ISP list
Transit$$$
Transit$$$
ISP A
ISP B
Transit ISP
Top 10, Def: Peering…
Sample Top 10 Destination ListA S N u m b e r M b p s D e s t i n a t i o n I S P C o n t a c t
6 1 7 2 2 4 . 3 5 H O M E - N E T - 1 [ H O M E - N O C - A R I N ]
7 0 1 8 . 9 0 A L T E R N E T - A S [ I E 8 - A R I N ]
1 6 6 8 8 . 1 4 A O L - P R I M E H O S T [ A O L - N O C - A R I N ]
4 7 6 6 7 . 0 8 A P N I C - A S - B L O C K [ S A 9 0 - A R I N ]
3 3 2 0 5 . 1 2 R I P E - A S N B L O C K 4 [ R I P E - N C C - A R I N ]
5 7 7 4 . 2 4 B A C O M [ E Q - A R I N ]
6 3 2 7 3 . 9 0 S H A W F I B E R [ I A S - A R I N ]
1 3 . 8 9 B B N P L A N E T [ C S 1 5 - A R I N ]
7 0 1 8 3 . 6 6 A T T - I N T E R N E T 4 [ J B 3 3 1 0 - A R I N ]
9 3 1 8 3 . 1 3 A P N I C - A S - 3 - B L O C K [ S A 9 0 - A R I N ]
5 7 6 9 2 . 6 7 V I D E O T R O N [ N A V 1 - A R I N ]
6 8 3 0 2 . 3 0 H C S N E T - A S N B L K [ M D 2 0 5 - A R I N ]
9 2 7 7 2 . 2 2 A P N I C - A S - 3 - B L O C K [ S A 9 0 - A R I N ]
1 0 9 9 4 2 . 0 8 T A M P A 2 - T W C - 5 [ J D 6 - A R I N ]
1 2 3 9 2 . 0 5 S p r i n t L i n k [ S P R I N T - N O C - A R I N ]
I n t e r n e t S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r A
Def: Peering
Definition of PeeringDef: Peering is the business relationship whereby ISPs reciprocally announce reachability to each others’ transit customers.
Peering
USNet EastNetWestNet
Peering
TransitRoutingTables
•Peering is *not* a transitive relationship•Peering *does not* provide access to the entire Internet
Cost Peering vs. Transit
Usage: “I buy transit from UUNet and Peer with EastNet, WestNet.”
The Cost of PeeringPeering
0
500
1000
1500
2000
25001 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100
Traffic Exchanged (Mbps)
$/M
bp
s
Peering
1) Monthly Circuit Fee into IX2) Monthly IX Port Fees
When does Peering Make Sense Financially?
Peering vs. Transit
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 6 11 16 21 26 31
Traffic Exchanged (Mbps)
$/M
bp
s
Transit $/Mbps
Peering
Number of Mbps exchanged
Generalization:ISP Peering Breakeven Analysis Graphs
$/MbpsExchanged
Cost of Transit
Cost of Traffic Exchange in Peering Relationship
Breakeven Point (ISPs Indifferent between
Peering and Transit traffic exchange)
Prefer PeeringPeeringRisk
Synch Point
• You should have – a working lexicon at this point– A sense of the motivations for Peering &
Transit
• Any questions so far?
The Internet Peering Ecosystem
Pre-Crash : circa 2000
Peering Ecosystem
• System of interconnected (Peering and Transit) players
• Each group with homogenous peering motivations and observed behaviors– Tier 1 ISPs– Tier 2 ISPs– Content Providers
Def: Tier 1 ISP
• Definition: A Tier 1 ISP is an ISP that has access to the entire Internet Region solely through peering relationships. (i.e. doesn’t buy transit from anyone to see regional routes)
• Motivation: Doesn’t need to peer with anyone else, so
• Peering only with other Tier 1 ISPs
Def: Tier 2 ISP
• Definition: A Tier 2 ISPs is any ISP that has to purchase transit to reach destinations in an Internet Region
• Motivation: Peer to decrease costs, improve performance
• Peering: with Tier 1’s is preferable but hard to get, peering with Tier 2’s as appropriate
• Must purchase Transit
Def: Content Providers
• Def: A Content Provider is an entity that produces content for delivery over the Internet but does not sell transit.
• Motivation: Best Customer Experience (engineered performance)
• Peering: Not typically done, prefer SLAs.
• Transit from ISPs
Content
1998-2000
Tier 2 ISPs
Tier 1 ISPs
Transit$
Thickness representsIn-Group Peering
The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem
Act II: 2000-2003
Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem
Four key events leading to drastic disruption in the Peering Ecosystem:
1) The 1999/2000 Telecom Collapse2) The growth of the Used Equipment Market3) The Upstream Provider for the Cable Companies
(@Home) went bankrupt4) Peer-to-Peer file sharing systems (like Kazaa) grow
in popularity, traffic grows exponentially between Access Providers (1.5MB MP3 700MB AVI files)
5) Transit Prices Drop, Transport Prices Drop
Leads to 3 Major Evolutions
Evolution #1 – Cable Companies are Peering
• 40% of traffic Kazaa• 3-5 Gbps of transit
traffic-> Gbps of peering potential !
Significant because1) Volume2) Open Peering3) Kazaa Effect
(Optional)Backbone Backhaul
Cable Company
Transit Provider Interconnections (Upstream(s))
Peering
U.S. Cable Companies Eyeballs
MSO Country YE02 Change in 02Comcast USA 3,620,300 1,199,100Time Warner USA 2,613,000 1,027,000Cox USA 1,407,900 524,400Charter USA 1,180,000 572,300CableVision USA 770,100 263,500Shaw (Big Pipe) Canada 750,000 ?Rogers Canada 650,000 ?Adelphia USA 610,000 305,900Bright House USA 490,000 159,000Mediacom USA 191,000 76,000RCN USA 160,400 49,800Insight USA 144,800 56,700Cable One USA 78,100 45,200Total 12,665,600 4,278,900
Cable Modem Subscribers
Source: The Bridge & Leichtman ResearchSource: I$P HO$TING ReportMay 2003, Volume VII, Number 5, Page 8Article "Dialup Bakeoff - Is it really so bad at EarthLink? Or so good at United?"Source: Bill Norton conversations with Rogers and Shaw 2002 (numbers may be understated)
Cable Company
Cable Company
Cable Company
Cable CompanyCable Company
Cable Company
Cable Company
AOL
Content
1998-2000
Tier 2 ISPs
Tier 1 ISPs
Transit$
Thickness representsIn-Group Peering
Content
2000-2003 Evolution #1 – Cable Companies Peering
Tier 2 ISPs
CableCos
Tier 1 ISPs
Peering
Evolution #2 – Network Savvy Large Scale Content Companies
get into Peering• To reduce transit costs • To improve the end user experience• They need to move out of bankrupt colo anyway
Significant because
1) Volume of traffic is huge
2) Content Providers have Open Peering
3) Leading players pave the way
Content
1998-2000
Tier 2 ISPs
Tier 1 ISPs
Transit$
Thickness representsIn-Group Peering
Content
2000-2003 Evolution #2 – Large Scale Network Savvy Content
Peers
Tier 2 ISPs
LSNSC
Tier 1 ISPs
Other Broadband Players
• Significant, but…
• Not Open Peers so disincentive to peer
• So less volume and less disruptive
Evolution #3 – Cable Companies Freely Peer with Content
Companies• Content literally on the Cable Company
Network
• Lowest possible latency from content to eyeballs
• Internet Gaming, Broadband Streaming, etc.
Content
1998-2000
Tier 2 ISPs
Tier 1 ISPs
Transit$
Thickness representsIn-Group Peering
Content
2000-2003 Evolution #1 – Cable Companies Peering
Tier 2 ISPs
CableCos
Tier 1 ISPs
Content
2000-2003 Evolution #2 – Large Scale Network Savvy Content
Peers
Tier 2 ISPs
LSNSC
Tier 1 ISPs
Content
2000-2003 Evolution #3 – Cable Peers with Large Scale Network
Savvy Content
Tier 2 ISPs
LSNSC
Tier 1 ISPs
CableCos
International Dynamics – Separate White Paper
Content
Tier 2 ISPs
LSNSC
Tier 1 ISPs
CableCos
Content
Tier 2 ISPs
Tier 1 ISPs
NTT
KDDI
IIJ
JTCableCos
DSL
JP U.S.
U.S. Tier 1 ISPs are Tier 2 ISPs in Japan Internet RegionJapan Tier 1 ISPs are Tier 2 ISPs in the U.S. Internet Region
Q&A