1. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 1
Economic Traffic Management (ETM)
Mechanisms – Selected View
SSimple Economicimple Economic MManagement Approachesanagement Approaches ooff
OOverlayverlay TTraffic inraffic in HHeterogeneouseterogeneous IInternetnternet TTopologiesopologies
European Seventh Framework STREP FP7-2007-ICT-216259European Seventh Framework STREP FP7-2007-ICT-216259
UZH, DOCOMO, TUD, AUEB, PrimeTel, AGH, ICOM, UniWue, TIDUZH, DOCOMO, TUD, AUEB, PrimeTel, AGH, ICOM, UniWue, TID
Fabio Hecht, UZHFabio Hecht, UZH
(on behalf of SmoothIT)(on behalf of SmoothIT)
October 20, 2010October 20, 2010
Brussels, BelgiumBrussels, Belgium

2. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 2
Basics and Motivation
 Use of economic mechanisms for controlling, managing
network traffic of overlays at early stages:
 SmoothIT results show already that such mechanisms do
have the important property of scalability and effectiveness!
– Situation-dependent ETMs lead to a more efficient network operation
– ETMs generate a higher value (QoE) for its customers.
 In managing the traffic created and routed through their
networks, today’s ISPs are offered by SmoothIT
methodologies suitable for modern traffic/service profiles
– E.g., peer-to-peer traffic is treated according to ETM approaches.
– Applicable to traffic of different P2P applications
Economic Traffic Management (ETM)

3. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 3
Triple Win
 All ETM mechanisms aim at achieving TripleWin
– Overlay traffic is optimized beneficially for all three stakeholders:
ISPs, overlay providers, and users
 Incentives for operators (i.e. ISPs)
– Monetary: reduce overlay traffic and inter-domain traffic
– Traffic management: less congested links, better performance
– Reputation: keep customers, distinguish from other operators
 Incentives for overlay providers
– Performance: Active role in traffic mgmt increases service quality
– Reputation: increased user base due to better performing services
 Incentives for users
– Performance: Increased service quality, e.g., reliability, RTT, BW
– Monetary: lower price for network access

4. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 4
ETM Classification and Synergies
 High potential for
synergies
 Progressive
development of
approaches possible
 Incremental
enhancement of
architecture possible

5. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 5
ETM Mechanisms Ported to Trials
1. BGP-Based Locality Promotion (BGP-Loc):
ISP provides proximity-related recommendation to overlay
applications, which is used to optimize traffic.
2. Insertion of ISP-Owned Peers (IoP):
Resourceful entity enhancing both traffic locality and QoE
within an ISP.
3. Promotion of Highly Active Peers (HAP):
Boosts peers which contribute the most in order to achieve
similar results as IoPs with little investment in
infrastructure.

6. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 6
SmoothIT Information Service (SIS)
 Deployment of SIS components in the ISPs’ network
– To convey information between overlay and underlay
 Client-Server architecture
 Overlay applications interact with SIS in order to select
“better” peers, e.g. local peers, IoPs or HAPs.
– Reducing ISPs costs and improving QoE of users
SIS
P
P P
P P
P P
SIS
ISP A ISP B
SIS protocol
P Peer / Overlay appl.

7. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 7
SmoothIT Information Service (SIS)
IoP ETMS
Underl
ay
Overla
y
SIS
H
A
P
(Aggregate) underlay
metrics
Peers’ (abstracted)
overlay status
Popular
swarms
Best
peers
QoS enhancements
QoE
improvements
Cost reduction
Revenue increase
SIS is the core of the ETM System (ETMS),
which can lead to TripleWin.

8. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 8
Simulated Network Topology
Hub AS 1
Initial
seeder SIS
Transit
AS
Hub AS 2
Stub AS 1…10 Stub AS 11…20
Peering
link
Transit
link
Inter-AS
link

9. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 9
BGP-Loc
 At application: task is to discover neighbors to
download from and select neighbors to upload to
– “Unchoked” neighbors receive data
– “Choked” neighbors do not receive data.
 Used BitTorrent (file sharing) and Tribler (video
streaming, based on BitTorrent)
– Regular BitTorrent (regBT):
• TFT slots: upload to peers that have provided the most
• optimistic unchoking slot: upload to a random peer
– BNS: Biased Neighbor Selection
• Peers prefer to download from local peers from SIS
– BOU: Biased Optimistic Unchoking
• Peers prefer to upload to local peers from SIS

10. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 10
Access inter-AS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Bottleneck Type
DownloadTimes(min)
regBT
BOU
BNS
BNS&BOU
BGP-Loc: Simulation Results
Homogeneous Scenario
Mean traffic (Mbyte/s)
Mean download times (min)
Access inter-AS
0
10
20
30
40
50
Bottleneck Type
Bandwidth(MB/s)
Intra-AS
Peering Links
Transit Links
regBT
BOU
BNS
BNS&BOU
BitTorrent: Bottleneck Types
Inter-AS
Inter-AS
Inter-AS
Inter-AS

11. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 11
Mean traffic (Mbyte/s)
Mean stalling times (s)
Tribler: Bottleneck Types
Access Core
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Bottleneck Type
StallTimes(sec)
regBT
BOU
BNS
BNS&BOU
Access Core
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Bottleneck Type
Bandwidth(MB/s)
Intra-AS
Peering Links
Transit Links
regBT
BOU
BNS
BNS&BOU
Inter-AS
Inter-AS
Inter-AS
Inter-AS
BGP-Loc: Simulation Results
Homogeneous Scenario (2)

12. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 12
BGP-Loc: Simulation Results
Heterogeneous Scenario
Mean upload traffic for different
ASes with different populations
(Mbyte/s)
Mean download times (min)
Heterogeneous peer distribution
0 5 10 15 20
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
AS ID
DownloadTimes(min)
Ref
BU
BNS
BNSBU
0 5 10 15 20
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
AS ID
UploadBandwidth(MB/s)
Ref
BU
BNS
BNSBU

13. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 13
BGP-Loc: Evaluation Summary
 Bottleneck: access links  Win–No-lose
– Download times remain unaffected
– Savings in inter-AS bandwidth are achieved
 Bottleneck: inter-domain links  Win–Win
– Still some inter-AS bandwidth can be saved
– Download/stalling times can be improved significantly
 The efficiency of locality promotion is higher in ASes
having larger fractions of the swarm
 The performance improvement further increases with
the fraction of locality-promoting peers

14. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 14
Insertion of ISP-owned Peers (IoP)
 Motivation: Sole locality may not improve peers’
performance. We can exploit overlay functioning
to localize traffic and achieve Win-Win
 Approach: Insert an ISP-owned peer (overlay entity)
provisioned with higher access capacity
 Impact: Improvement of peers’ performance and
reduction of inbound traffic
 Innovation: Transparency, no interception required.
Variety of policies

15. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 15
Promotion of Highly Active Peers (HAP)
 Motivation: Increase the access capacity of very active
regular peers instead of inserting ISP-owned entities
 Approach: Exploitation of ISP’s NGN capabilities to
change the access profile of certain users
 Impact: Give peers the incentive to serve as seeds.
Localize traffic while improving peers’ performance.
 Innovation: Fully innovative mechanism, with NGN.
Extra resources directly given to peers.

16. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 16
Summary and Conclusions
 Dedicated management of overlay traffic is
necessary
– Due to smoothing large amounts of overlay traffic
– Due to the minimization of high(er) costs for ISPs
 SmoothIT architectural design and impl. completed
– SmoothIT Information Service (SIS)
• Deployed in networks of ISPs
• Provides information to overlay applications
• Optimizes traffic and achieves the Triple Win situation
 Many sets of simulative evaluations in place
 SmoothIT participates at IETF in ALTO (3 drafts)
 Trials with selected ETM mechanisms are running
currently in a real network

17. © 2010 The SmoothIT Consortium 17
Thank you for your attention!
Thanks to all SmoothIT’s project partners:
UZH, DOCOMO, TUD, AUEB, PrimeTel, AGH, ICOM, UniWue, TID