Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS, TCP protocols

1. SESERV
Socio-Economic Services for European Research Projects
http://www.seserv.org
European Seventh Framework CSA FP7-2010-ICT-258138
Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS, TCP
Costas Kalogiros (AUEB)
The interplay of economics and
technology for the Future Internet
SESERV Workshop
Athens, Greece, January 31, 2012
© 2011 The SESERV Consortium 1

2. Mistyping a URL
… she receives a webpage full who
Imagine an inexperienced user of
advertisements…
mistypes the twitter.com URL … and instead of getting an error …
… in Greek!
(twitterw.com does not exist)
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 2

3. Tussle analysis case study: name resolution
DNS registry Increased “cost”
A DNS registry for End-Users
strategies/policies
introduces a wildcard
ISPs route all packets destined to
Stakeholders’
DNS record for .com
Tussle outcome
DNS registryʼs redirection
server into a black hole
ISP ?
(neutral
entity)
Increased “cost”
End-User Functionality: Naming & Addressing for DNS registries
Traffic is optimized
strategies/policies
ISP-2
selfishly
Tussle outcome
Stakeholders’
ISPs perform
traffic
engineering New BGP advertisements
for optimizing cause more instability
network
usage
ISP-1 Traffic is optimized
Functionality: Routing & Traffic Engineering selfishly
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 3

4. Tussle analysis case study: bandwidth sharing
peer-to-peer Increased “cost” for
p2p users configure
(p2p) users
applications to open p2p applications interactive users
multiple TCP
strategies/policies
configured to
Stakeholders’
connections for the ?
Tussle outcome
perform traffic
same session ISPs throttle obfuscation
bandwidth of p2p
applications by using
ISP DPI technology. What if ISPs deploy
(neutral p2p congestion exposure
entity) applications
?
technologies &
motivate multiple congestion pricing schemes?
interactive TCP connections for
users the same session
Functionality: bandwidth sharing Increased “cost” for
heavy users
Increased “cost” for
ISP VoIP providers
Tussle outcome
Increased “cost”
Functionality: VoIP service delivery for ISPs
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 4

5. Focus Groups
• Each participant:
• choose a stakeholder role that he/she is
going to play during the Focus Group, and
• will express his/her interests
• A project representative will demonstrate the
proposed technology using 1 or 2 case
studies
• After each presentation:
• all stakeholders will be able to express how they
perceive the presented future technology, and
• examine any conflicts of interest among different
stakeholders and how these would evolve, as well
as identify any critical control points
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 5

6. Future Internet Stakeholder Roles
Industry Standardization Consortiums
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers
Network Element Vendors
Edge ISP
Application Developers
Transit ISP
SDK Publishers Content Distribution Networks
Research Projects Directory Service Providers
Technology Connectivity Application Service Providers
Makers Providers
Brokers (Market Place Providers)
Professionals
Amateurs Communication Providers
Content Information Gaming Providers
Owners Providers
Financial Service Providers
Internet Retailers
Regulators
Policy Makers Infrastructure
Administration Authorities Providers
Researchers Network Exchange Points
Security Agencies Last Mile Providers
Users
Residential Network Component Dark Fiber Provider
Providers
Business Consumers Gateway Providers
Sensor Operators
Roamers
Venue owners
End-users
Cloud Operators
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 6

7. More Information
• http://www.seserv.org
• getinvolved@seserv.org
• http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=3870856
• http://www.twitter.com/seserv
• DNS case study based on: Harald Alvestrand, Architectural
Concerns on the Use of DNS Wildcards, IAB, September 2003.
• TCP case study based on: Bob Briscoe, “Flow rate fairness:
dismantling a religion”, SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 37, 2
(March 2007), 63-74.
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 7