enable user choice in routing xiaowei yang [email protected] uc irvine nsf find pi meeting, june 27 2007
TRANSCRIPT
Outline An economic perspective on the
importance of user-choice in routing
Why we can stop worrying about user-controlled routes
Economic landscape of the broadband market
Both DSL and Cable are non-common carriers In August 2005, DSL was classified as an information
service. In March 2002, Cable was classified as an information
service. The Brand X case in June 2005
Facility-based competition is duopoly at best
Incumbent Cable and DSL have 99.5 percent of all broadband consumers.
20032005 Source: FCC
Rising problems signify insufficient competition
The debate over net neutrality Ed Whitacre: “Now what they [Internet upstarts
like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others] would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it,” says Whitacre. ”So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?”
Lack of innovation at the network layer No end-to-end quality of service
The resurrection of Ma Bell
2005
2005
2006
A duopoly Internet?
Cable Phone
Cable backbone Phone backbone
If access providers export their market power to the backbone market, the backbone market may become less competitive as well
The list of problems can only grow longer Net neutrality, lack of innovation…
Choose one out of
two!
Let User Choose Provider-Level Routes
User choice stimulates competition and competition fosters innovation
User choice may preserve the competitiveness in the backbone market, and reward innovative providers
at&t
Local ISP
cogent
Outline An economic perspective on the
importance of user-choice in routing
Why we can stop worrying about user-controlled routes
Challenges Why would at&t allow it?
May require non-technical solutions
User-controlled routes are problematic Security! Stability Policy Pricing Scalability Overhead
R7
B4 B3
R4 R10 B2
R1 R3
N2 N3
B1
R2N18
R5
R6 R9 R8
N17
N16
N15
N14 N13 N11 N10
N8
N7
N6
N5
N4
N12
X
Scalability
N9
N1
core
Bob Alice
Cindy
A pair of addresses to represent a route
R7
B4 B3
R4 R10 B2
R1 R3
N2 N3
B1
R2N18
R5
R6 R9 R8
N17
N16
N15
N14 N13 N11 N10
N8
N7
N6
N5
N4
N12N9
N1
core
Bob Alice
Cindy
Low overhead Alleviate the problem of source address spoofing
Conclusion
User choice in routing has the potential to preserve competition in the backbone market
Technical challenges can be addressed
at&t
Local ISP
cogent
The price of Anarchy
[Roughgarden05]
ISP1
ISP4
ISP3
ISP2
C(x) = x
C(x) = 1
1/2
…
1/2
1
Not as bad as in theory!
In realistic network topologies selfish routing and optimal routing are comparable [Qiu03]
ISP1
ISP4
ISP3
ISP2
C(x)
C(x)
…