Remote Peering: More Peering without Internet Flattening

Transcription

1 Remote Peering: More Peering without Internet Flattening Ignacio Castro Juan Camilo Cardona * Sergey Gorinsky Pierre Francois IMDEA Networks Institute Madrid, Spain Open University of Catalonia Barcelona, Spain * Carlos III University of Madrid Madrid, Spain WIE, La Jolla, 10 December 2014

2 Everything depends on the color of the crystal that one looks through

3 Everything depends on the color of the crystal that one looks through Looking at the Internet through layer-3 glasses

4 Modeling of Internet Economics Internet Layer-3 model Network Autonomous System () Interconnections between networks Customer Peer Transit Peering Provider Peer 4

5 Is there anything else?

6 Remote-Peering Providers IXP Remote-peering provider Remotely peering IP router Layer-2 switch Service components Layer-2 connectivity of the to the IXP Peering equipment at the IXP 6

7 Usage of Remote Peering African Reaching a distant IXP Connecting two IXPs AMS-IX Reducing costs over short distances AMS-IX Hong Kong Dutch? Trial peering Dutch 7 Remote peering

8 Usage of Remote Peering African Reaching a distant IXP Connecting two IXPs AMS-IX Reducing costs over short distances AMS-IX Hong Kong Dutch? Trial peering Dutch 8 Remote peering

9 Usage of Remote Reering African Reaching a distant IXP Connecting two IXPs AMS-IX Reducing costs over short distances AMS-IX Hong Kong Dutch? Trial peering Dutch 9 Remote peering

10 Usage of Remote Peering African Reaching a distant IXP Connecting two IXPs AMS-IX Reducing costs over short distances AMS-IX Hong Kong Dutch? Dutch Trial peering 10 Remote peering Peering

11 Our Contributions Measurement-based studies Spread of remote peering Impact of remote peering on Internet traffic Modeling of economic viability Remote peering vs. transit and direct peering 11

12 Studied questions Estimating the Spread How many IXPs have remote peering? How many IXP members are remote peers? Approach Conservative estimate RTT (Round-Trip Time) as a metric of peer remoteness 22 IXPs with colocated Looking Glass servers 12

13 Classification of Peers as Remote IXP Looking Glass ping request ping reply IP address Peering IP router IP address from PCH, PeeringDB, and IXPs websites Ping reply within one IP hop if its TTL = maximum TTL 4 months and 6 filters to get minimum RTT reliably If RTT > threshold, classify the peer as remote Empirical threshold of 10 ms 13

14 Validation IXP Looking Glass ping request ping reply IP address Remotely peering IXP Remote-peering provider IP router Layer-2 switch Public IXP information on remote peers Ground truth from TorIX RTT measurements Remotely peering es 14

15 Spread across IXPs X X 15 91% of the IXPs have remote peering

16 Spread within IXPs 16 Around 20% of AMS-IX peers are remote

17 Our Contributions Measurement-based studies Spread of remote peering Impact of remote peering on Internet traffic Modeling of economic viability Remote peering vs. transit and direct peering 17

18 Estimating the Offload Potential Studied questions How can an benefit from remote peering? How much traffic can the offload from its transit-provider links? Evaluated RedIRIS, the Spanish national academic network 1 month of NetFlow traffic data Routing tables 18

19 Transit-Provider Traffic of RedIRIS Transit providers (2) Transit Traffic RedIRIS 2 transit providers 29,570 es contribute transit traffic 19

20 Choice of Reached IXPs Transit providers (2) Remote peering Peering Transit Traffic IXP members RedIRIS IXPs Up to 65 IXPs from Euro-IX Customer cones of IXP members Reaching up to 12,238 es Out of 29,570 es with RedIRIS transit traffic 20

21 Choice of Peers for RedIRIS Transit providers (2) Remote peering Peering Transit Traffic IXP members 21 RedIRIS IXPs Peering policies from Peering DB 1. all open, lower bound 2. all open and top 10 selective, 3. all open and selective, 4. all policies upper bound Customer cones of IXP members

22 How Much Traffic can RedIRIS Offload? 8% 25% Between 8% and 25% of reduction in transit traffic 22

23 Utility of Reaching an Additional IXP 23 Reaching only 5 IXPs realizes most of the offload potential

24 Is the RedIRIS Case Representative? 24 Decreasing marginal utility of reaching an additional IXP is a general property

25 Conclusions Remote peering, a new common interconnection reaches and peers at IXP via a layer-2 provider Potential impact on Internet traffic is substantial Reaching only 5 IXPs realizes most of the potential Internet economic structure needs refined models Layer-2 entities need to be represented 25 Contact: Ignacio Castro, ignacio.decastro@imdea.org