Open peering by Internet transit providers: Peer preference or peer pressure?

Lodhi, Aemen; Dhamdhere, Amogh; Dovrolis, Constantine

doi:10.1109/infocom.2014.6848203

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Related work. Prior works on IXPs explore various aspects of the IXP ecosystem and show its impact on the Internet's hierarchical topology [25,29], traffic exchange economics [40,57], and content delivery [30,39,73]. Others discuss multilateral peering over IXPs at scale [49] and show that interconnection strategies, such as RP, and extensive colocation practices [48], create unexpected interdependencies among peering infrastructures [46].…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

O Peer, Where Art Thou? Uncovering Remote Peering Interconnections at IXPs

Giotsas

Nomikos

Kotronis

et al. 2021

IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) are Internet hubs that mainly provide the switching infrastructure to interconnect networks and exchange traffic. While the initial goal of IXPs was to bring together networks residing in the same city or country, and thus keep local traffic local, this model is gradually shifting. Many networks connect to IXPs without having physical presence at their switching infrastructure. This practice, called Remote Peering, is changing the Internet topology and economy, and has become the subject of a contentious debate within the network operators' community. However, despite the increasing attention it attracts, the understanding of the characteristics and impact of remote peering is limited. In this work, we introduce and validate a heuristic methodology for discovering remote peers at IXPs. We (i) identify critical remote peering inference challenges, (ii) infer remote peers with high accuracy (>95%) and coverage (93%) per IXP, and (iii) characterize different aspects of the remote peering ecosystem by applying our methodology to 30 large IXPs. We observe that remote peering is a significantly common practice in all the studied IXPs; for the largest IXPs, remote peers account for 40% of their member base. We also show that today, IXP growth is mainly driven by remote peering, which contributes two times more than local peering.

show abstract

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

O Peer, Where Art Thou? Uncovering Remote Peering Interconnections at IXPs

Giotsas

Nomikos

Kotronis

et al. 2021

IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lodhi at al. [18,19] built an agent-based model to evaluate the peering decisions of transit and tier-2 providers. In [19], they also explored sources of complexity in peering and limitations for tier-2 providers on accurately forecasting the effect of peering decisions.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paid Peering, Settlement-Free Peering, or Both?

Wang

Richard

2018

IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the rapid growth of congestion-sensitive and data-intensive applications, traditional settlement-free peering agreements with best-effort delivery often do not meet the QoS requirements of content providers (CPs). Meanwhile, Internet access providers (IAPs) feel that revenues from end-users are not sufficient to recoup the upgrade costs of network infrastructures. Consequently, some IAPs have begun to offer CPs a new type of peering agreement, called paid peering, under which they provide CPs with better data delivery quality for a fee. In this paper, we model a network platform where an IAP makes decisions on the peering types offered to CPs and the prices charged to CPs and end-users. We study the optimal peering schemes for the IAP, i.e., to offer CPs both the paid and settlement-free peering to choose from or only one of them, as the objective is profit or welfare maximization. Our results show that 1) the IAP should always offer the paid and settlement-free peering under the profit-optimal and welfare-optimal schemes, respectively, 2) whether to simultaneously offer the other peering type is largely driven by the type of data traffic, e.g., text or video, and 3) regulators might want to encourage the IAP to allocate more network capacity to the settlement-free peering for increasing user welfare.

show abstract

“…In particular, there are a growing number of Internet exchange points (IXPs), which offer ASes the ability to peer with each other and thereby save money [45]. Most transit and access provider ASes will peer with any non-customer AS [46]. This suggests that peering is compatible with ASes' incentives and is likely to continue to be common.…”

Section: Network Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dovetail: Stronger Anonymity in Next-Generation Internet Routing

Sankey

Wright

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current low-latency anonymity systems use complex overlay networks to conceal a user's IP address, introducing significant latency and network efficiency penalties compared to normal Internet usage. Rather than obfuscating network identity through higher level protocols, we propose a more direct solution: a routing protocol that allows communication without exposing network identity, providing a strong foundation for Internet privacy, while allowing identity to be defined in those higher level protocols where it adds value.Given current research initiatives advocating "clean slate" Internet designs, an opportunity exists to design an internetwork layer routing protocol that decouples identity from network location and thereby simplifies the anonymity problem. Recently, Hsiao et al. proposed such a protocol (LAP), but it does not protect the user against a local eavesdropper or an untrusted ISP, which will not be acceptable for many users. Thus, we propose Dovetail, a nextgeneration Internet routing protocol that provides anonymity against an active attacker located at any single point within the network, including the user's ISP. A major design challenge is to provide this protection without including an application-layer proxy in data transmission. We address this challenge in path construction by using a matchmaker node (an end host) to overlap two path segments at a dovetail node (a router). The dovetail then trims away part of the path so that data transmission bypasses the matchmaker. Additional design features include the choice of many different paths through the network and the joining of path segments without requiring a trusted third party. We develop a systematic mechanism to measure the topological anonymity of our designs, and we demonstrate the privacy and efficiency of our proposal by simulation, using a model of the complete Internet at the AS-level.

show abstract

Open peering by Internet transit providers: Peer preference or peer pressure?

Cited by 24 publications

References 23 publications

O Peer, Where Art Thou? Uncovering Remote Peering Interconnections at IXPs

O Peer, Where Art Thou? Uncovering Remote Peering Interconnections at IXPs

Paid Peering, Settlement-Free Peering, or Both?

Dovetail: Stronger Anonymity in Next-Generation Internet Routing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About