1. Networks: Perspectives and Analysis in the Future
Internet
Socio-Economic Deutsche Telekom, Brussels, June 20th, 2012. Future
Dr. Falk von Bornstaedt, Certainties and Change for the
Internet 2.11.2011 1

2. Understanding QoS.

3. Title.
Subtitle.
I pay 13€
for WLAN
in the
hotel
… and get
only
2MByte
in 40
minutes
3

4. So I watch the
city panorama.
No QoS either -
only fog!
4

5. In air travel, we are
spending 1000s of €
to get better quality.
5

6. But we do not have a
similar option for the
Internet!
6

7. That‘s how we like it:
NO CONGESTION!
7

8. But the reality is often more
like this!
Solution? Add some lanes!
8

9. Well, are you sure
that many lanes will
indeed solve the
problem?
9
wzfvb

10. 24 lanes will
definitely solve
the problem!
wzfvb

11. The Need for QoS.

12. QoS becomes increasingly important for the Internet.
Example: sea-cable interruptions.
Taiwan, Alexandria,
12/2006 1/2008
3 sea cables broke.
Egypt lost 90% of March 05, 2010, TMCnet
its internet Four Undersea Cables Damaged as a Result of
Thursday's Earthquake in Taiwan
At least four undersea fiber-optic telecommunications
cables were damaged as a result of the 6.4-magnitude
earthquake and aftershocks that rocked Taiwan on
Sicily, Thursday.
12/2008
Source: Renesys, et. al.
12
wzfvb

13. Internet traffic is growing rapidly. Real Time Entertainment
driving up network costs.
Growth of Evening peak drives network cost.
§ traffic growth ca.50%
YoY, constant network
upgrades needed
§ QoS helps Telcos to
achieve higher
network utilization
§ Real-Time
Entertainment =
primary driver of
network capacity
requirements,
accounting for 60% of
peak downstream
traffic.
§ Subscriber usage is
becoming increasingly
concentrated in a
smaller band of the
evening, driving up
network costs.
(source: Sandvine) 13
wzfvb

14. A typical daily traffic profile shows severe variations. Moving
elastic traffic into the off-peak periods can significantly reduce
cost.
Can the peak be
moved?
14
wzfvb

15. Examples for elastic and inelastic services.
Elastic Inelastic
Communication services § Instant messaging § VoIP solutions
§ E-cards § Web conferencing systems
§ Internet surfing § Video chat
§ Online address book § Unified communication
Money/goods transfer § Online booking and reservations § Internet auctions
§ Online shopping search and cataloguing § Online market place (stock, trade platforms...)
§ Online banking: basic (not time critical) payment
Video based and Basic VoD (if sufficient bandwidth available)
§ All kind of IPTV business models (traditional,
§
streaming services Internet radio: download (on demand) based services
§ over the top TV,...)
(e.g., audio files of former radio programmes)
Web 2.0 applications § Blogging § Live video streaming (user generated)
§ Online social networking/ communities
§ File/photo sharing or photo streaming
§ Online voting
IT world/business § Basic CRM, ERP etc. services if sufficient bandwidth § Cloud Computing/SaaS: Web services for
applications available: no demand in interactivity or other “inelastic” developers, business collaboration applications,
features desktop applications, ERP, virtual office, virtual data
§ Security: Online back up/storage centre
§ Telemetry: location-based services, city maps/guides § Online recovery & storage services
Gaming § Online games: basic single player web-based games or § MMO (massive multiplayer online games)
life-simulation games (e.g. The Second Life, The Sims)
Non IT/telecom related § E-Government: online voting and information download § First aid booths (with video phone, tele-metering)
content § E-health: News/information download or broadcast § Medical data exchange
§ E-Learning: Digital libraries (e-book/digital magazine) § Online academic and research networks
§ Online directories, job search, news
15
wzfvb

16. Defining “QoS”.
wzfvb

17. Quality of Service (QoS) vs. Quality of Experience
(QoE).
User and provider perspectives.
Content User
Service creation Service consumption
System /
Quality elements Quality elements
Service
Quality of Service (QoS) Quality of Experience (QoE)
§ QoS helps to guarantee certain characteristics of network and service
performance,
e.g., bandwidth, maximum delay.
§ For the user, however, only the perceived Quality (QoE) counts
ð Provisioning of QoE instead of QoS desirable
ð Prediction and Modelling of QoE is necessary
17
wzfvb

18. Quality of Experience (QoE).
Proposed definitions.
ITU-T Rec. P.10 (2007):
Quality of Experience (QoE): “The overall acceptability of an application
or service, as perceived subjectively by the end user.”
§ Includes the complete end-to-end system effects
§ May be influenced by user expectations and context
Dagstuhl Seminar "From Quality of Service to Quality of Experience“ (2009)
Quality of Experience (QoE): “Degree of delight of the user of a service.
In the context of communication services, it is influenced by content,
network, device, application, user expectations and goals, and context
of use.”
ITU-T Rec. E.800, 1994
Quality of Service (QoS): "The collective effect of objective service
performance which ultimately determines the degree of satisfaction of
a user of the service.“
18
wzfvb

19. Innovation in video streaming is just one example to show that
any static definition or regulation of QoS is soon overtaken by
reality.
Innovation impacts QoS
“Trends”
§ Video on mobile devices become
daily life service, supporting HD and
3D TV
§ Further dimensions like 3D and
holography, new applications like
FreeViewpointTV
Mbit/s § Hi-Resolution screen already in the
500,0
500 market (e.g. iPhone 4G), Micro
50,0
50 projectors coming
40 by 2018
“Consequence"
30,0 § Innovations and digitization give
30 Factor 222 by 2014
rise to new technologies/
20 applications, whose QoS demands
Factor 4,4
12,0 cannot be forecasted accurately
10 8,0
6,0 § QoS parameters like bandwidth,
4,0
0,7 1,0 1,1
0
0,2 delay, jitter and packetcan guarantee
QoS Enablers loss can only
MobileT MobileH YouTubeH Mobile S PC H HD2 HD4 3DH Holograph be predicted at clusterfor inelastic
network performance levels with
V D D 3D D Cloud
Gaming
D k k D ic imprecision services, which in turn
real-time IP
Mobile handset resolution TV full HD resolution improves QoE
19
wzfvb

20. Telcos can offer QoS guarantees.
wzfvb

21. IPX – distribute and receive all applications across
different provider networks.
Prepare for the next dimension of all-IP communications
Content Mobile
provider operator
Internet
Streaming Streaming
Game Hosting Applications, RCSe = Rich
Communication Suite
Seamless service (enhanced) Guaranteed
across all
provider networks
IP eXchange (IPX) end-to-end QoS
for all services
Internet
Voice Streaming
Data Applications Voice
Mobile ISP Fixed
MMS operator voice
carrier
Gaming
21

22. From a large variety of Telco’s Internet-related assets,
Quality of Service (QoS) can be a significant one.
Top-level View
Content Commerce Communication
Enabler-based Service
Service Creation & Service
Service Delivery Exposure Composition
Execution …
Application Enablers Network Enablers
Network-
Address
Book
Presence Recom-
and Location mendation Enabler Portfolio Session
Control
Distribution
Control
based
Authenticatio
Personal (exemplary) Network Network- n
Search Calendar based QoS Mgmt
Storage … Presence Messaging …
Social Media Identity Device
Hosting Charging Billing Network Storage Mgmt. Location Camera Contacts
Services Services Services
Identity User Profile Web Content Web Web Widget Device Remote
Management Management Payment
… Services Commerce Communicati
on …
Management Status Device
Management …
IT Enablers Web Enablers Terminal Enablers
22
wzfvb

23. “Cloud Computing” comprises SaaS, PaaS , IaaS
among others.
SaaS - Software-as-a- PaaS - Platform-as-a- IaaS - Infrastructure-as-a-
Service Service Service
§ Customer Web § Functional services § Virtual machines
Applications
§ Industry-specific
§ Database abstraction
§ Enterprise Web § Application hosting
Applications
§ Computation services
“Cloud Computing” refers to services which offer on-demand access based
on infrastructure owned and operated by 3rd parties.
23
wzfvb

24. Cloud Services also require cross-carrier QoS to span
production, delivery and consumption domains.
Production Delivery Consumption
Software/Platforms
QoS is determined
by each component Wireless Smartphone
and through their
interplay. loss
Pa cket
Ban
dwid
Com ss
put t lo th
P acke
e
Ban Jitter
Me mory dwid
th
Network
Jitter
Data centre – Content Delivery Network –
the Cloud Network Quality of Service
Home Browser
device
24
wzfvb

25. Potential for Cloud QoS management exists across production,
delivery and consumption domains. However, Telcos can
significantly impact delivery domain through QoS management.
Production § Optimize the software architecture for delivery from the cloud,
enabling global distribution and thereby faster delivery.
§ Set up data centers so that computing resources can be provisioned
and combined in a flexible way. Thereby, resources are available to
web applications as needed, reducing bottlenecks.
§ Create content/application delivery networks adapted to Cloud
offerings.
Delivery
§ Offer interface for web applications to set network QoS parameters.
This specifically involves QoS handover at peering points, QoS
management for the last mile and QoS management in radio cells.
§ Transcode content for mobile consumption, e.g. video transcoding
for YouTube.
Consumption
§ Optimize smart phone operating systems for business
requirements, enable them to manage network QoS.
§ Speed up web browsers (not Telco business).
25
wzfvb

26. Concept of inter-carrier Quality of Service.
QoS regime Internet regime
QoS interconnection Possible Bottleneck
Alternative network Deutsche Telekom Alternative network
Class A
Class B
Class C
Best
Effort
Company Connect
QoS
26

27. QoS support mechanisms – a comparison.
Over-provisioning DiffServ IntServ
§ Carriers have to invest § Every package § Every connection gets
in their networks includes a quality a quality class
frequently class § No differentiation
§ Needs a lot of § Differentiated services between services
resources § Good scalability § Easy to implement
§ Not a solution for § Better guarantee than § High overhead
cases like broken sea over-provisioning
cables
§ Seems to get the
standard
27
wzfvb

28. Will QoS work in multi-carrier scenarios?
payment no payment, no quality? payment
Content
NB
NA
NC
Paid relationship: Unpaid End user
Receiver of money relationship: no „eyeball“
will guarantee SLA for quality
quality
28

29. EU project: Economics and Technologies for Inter-
Carrier Services (ETICS).
ETICS in a nutshell
§ 3 Years: Jan. 2010 – Dec. 2012
§ Consortium:
§ 17 partners incl. technical
experts and economists
§ 6 EU Operators, 5 vendors, 6
acad.
§ Advisory Panel:
§ Other members of the value
Chain: Vendor (Juniper), IT/
cloud infrastructure provider
(Oxalya), Application Content
Provider (Akamaï), Bill
Norton (Dr. Peering)
§ Participation of Deutsche Main participants of EU-project ETICS::
Operators: BT, Deutsche Telekom (T-Labs & International Wholesale), Orange Labs,
Telekom: Telefonica I&D, Telenor
§ ICSS Equipment-vendors: Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs France (project lead), Alcatel-Lucent
§ Telekom Innovation Italy
R&D Institutes: Forschungszentrum Telekommunikation Wien, Israel Institute of
Laboratories Technology
Universities: Politecnico di Milano, Athens University of Economics and Business,
Université de Versailles
wzfvb

30. Economics and Technologies for Inter-Carrier
Services (ETICS).
Lost opportunities through current situation
Network: § Assured Service Quality not supported due to lack of
Undifferentiated
Best Effort service
E2E QoS agreements and business models.
No Sustainable
Business Model
No way to guaranty § Uncertainty regarding strategies for new inter-
QoS-sensitive
(higher revenue) services
provider HQ services, QoS-differentiation and the
economics of future options.
ETICS objectives
§ Propose new business, regulatory, pricing and accounting models for network interconnection
services:
§ Enabling the delivery of end-to-end multi-carrier network services supporting service
differentiation.
§ Allowing for a fair distribution of revenue shares among all the actors of the service delivery
value-chain.
§ Develop technical solutions to enforce the business QoS interconnect agreements on
heterogeneous networks:
§ Dynamic provisioning/configuration of network resources to provide soft & hard QoS assurance
across carriers.
§ SLA assurance processes to monitor contracts.
§ Overall automated processes to ease the deployment of services.
§ Experiment and test the feasibility of new interconnection models on lab platforms:
§ Field Trials.
§ Dissemination of the new proposed architectures and protocols toward standard bodies. wzfvb

31. ETICS Ecosystem.
SLA Request
ETICS
ETICS
Customer N offers community
(NSP, end user, Infsp…)
NSP NSP
Order A B
ETICS architecture framework
§ ETICS community: Set of Network Service Providers (NSP) that support the
ETICS architecture.
§ Each NSP provides assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity products.
§ A final ETICS community connectivity offer results from the stitching or the
combination of per-NSP products.
§ ETICS community customers can be:
§ Network service providers
§ End customer / business customer
§ Content / Information service providers (e.g. OTTs)
wzfvb

32. Summary and Conclusions.
Traffic Explosion and Price Decrease will continue
§ TrafficOld world in fixed and even more in mobile, driven by
explosion
video
§ Over-provisioning will become very costly with flat end user
revenues
§ Congestion needs to be managed
§ Today’s internet discriminates against quality sensitive
services
§ QoS becoming more and more important
Smart networks needed
§ New and better services will emerge with QoS enabled
networks
§ Intra-Carrier QoS already existing at many networks
§ Inter-Carrier QoS very challenging, expected within the next
year
§ End-to-End QoS is the final goal
32
wzfvb