Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I.
INTRODUCTION
431
A. Technical domain
Each and every aspect of the Internet ecosystem, which is a
collection of the ASes and policies of their administrative
organizations, is affected by the de facto standard inter-domain
routing protocol, Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). Since the
commercialization of the Internet, BGP has played a key role
of allowing networks to exchange routing information without
revealing strategic internal glimpse of their networks.
However, despite the pre-emptive filtering mechanisms, the
open nature of the Internet has resulted in several incidents of
malicious or inadvertent misuse of BGP routing information in
recent years [6].
METHODOLOGY
B. Economic domain
Business relationships between ASes can be fairly finegrained, however, these arrangements mainly present a
bifurcated model: either transit or peering. Internet transit is a
traditional customer-supplier arrangement. The customer ISP
pays the upstream provider ISP (typically volume-based
charges) for transiting traffic from and to the rest of the global
Internet. Today, ISPs buy transit service from multiple
providers to assure network resiliency and performance as
much as competitive pricing. Transit prices have been
declining each year but the growth per year in volumes has
compensated the decrease in favour of transit providers [9].
The Internet, where various commercial and noncommercial participants strive through their networking
objectives, is comprised of heterogeneous entities called
Autonomous Systems (AS). The administrative organizations
of ASes vary from giant global content providers (e.g., Google,
Microsoft and Amazon) to small stub network owners (e.g.,
single-homed enterprise or personal networks). Therefore, the
nature of ISP interconnection agreements and the motivations
of each participant are distinctive from each other.
432
C. Regulatory domain
Due to its open nature and its capability to maintain
competition, the Internet has so far remained largely
unregulated. Thus, the Internet market has evolved and
expanded tremendously throughout the last decades while
incorporating more than 40,000 ASes. However, with this
extraordinary success and socio-economic value, the Internet
has been gradually endeavoured to be subject to stricter
regulations [7].
Over the role of interconnection settlements, public
disputes have surfaced as a result of imbalanced traffic ratios.
Especially, the disputes between OTTs and eyeball-heavy ISPs
have made it clear that settlement-free peering could no longer
be sustained in such cases when one peer starts to double its
traffic sent to the other peer, and thus, creates asymmetrical
partaking in costs [12]. Emerging models, such as partial transit
and paid peering, represent a remedy to cater for a greater
diversity of needs without regulatory intervention.
B. Economic domain
In traditional telephony, mainly two wholesale charging
arrangements can be seen in practice: Calling Party's Network
Pays (CPNP) and Bill and Keep (BAK). Predominantly,
telephony service providers adhere to CPNP wholesale
433
C. Regulatory domain
MNO interconnections have always been subject to strong
regulations. Market has evolved in an oligopolistic manner and,
interconnecting in managed and closed walled garden models
with strong vertical orientation have become a natural outcome
of the mobile industry. The gradual demise of circuit-switched
voice traffic and the prominent raise of mobile content are
posing delicate challenges for regulatory authorities.
The current consensus emerged among policymakers
indicates that the abnormality in the termination fees that
reflect on customer usage have to be amended. In the same
vein, the Body of European Regulators of Electronic
TABLE I.
COMPARISON TABLE (
NDICATES SIMILARITIES,
ISP Interconnections
T
E
C
H
E
C
O
R
E
G
INDICATES DISSIMILARITIES)
MNO Interconnections
Transit and peering, and alternatively partial transit and paid peering
Deregulated success story; creates its own remedy, e.g., paid peering
Highly regulated on both wholesale and retail levels; regulatory price caps
Private networks with transit only function; net neutrality debates not in sight
National regulatory bodies set the playground for ISPs and Internet content
434
V.
VI.
435
[6] K. Butler, T.R. Farley, P. McDaniel, and J. Rexford, "A survey of BGP
security issues and solutions," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 98, no. 1,
pp. 100-122, January 2010.
[7] D. Weller and B. Woodcock, "Internet Traffic Exchange: Market
Developments and Policy Challenges," 2012.
[8] C. Labovitz, S. Iekel-Johnson, D. McPherson, J. Oberheide, and F.
Jahanian, "Internet inter-domain traffic," ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 7586, 2010.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
[20] M. Carroll and J. C. Tanner, "Navigating complexity: the quest for true
IPX," Telecom Asia, June 2013.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Baldwin, J. Ewert, and S. Yamen, "Evolution of the voice
interconnect," Ericsson Review 2, pp. 10-15, 2010.
[3] M. Roughan et al, "10 lessons from 10 years of measuring and modeling
the Internets autonomous systems," IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1810-1821, 2011.
IEEE
436