Sharing the cost of backbone networks

Cui bono?

Laszlo Gyarmati, Rade Stanojevic, Michael Sirivianos, Nikolaos Laoutaris

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We study the problem of how to share the cost of a backbone network among its customers. A variety of empirical cost-sharing policies are used in practice by backbone network operators but very little ever reaches the research literature about their properties. Motivated by this, we present a systematic study of such policies focusing on the discrepancies between their cost allocations. We aim at quantifying how the selection of a particular policy biases an operator's understanding of cost generation. We identify F-discrepancies due to the specific function used to map traffic into cost (e.g., volume vs. peak rate vs. 95-percentile) and M-discrepancies, which have to do with where traffic is metered (per device vs. ingress metering). We also identify L-discrepancies relating to the liability of individual customers for triggered upgrades and consequent costs (full vs. proportional), and finally, TCO-discrepancies emanating from the fact that the cost of carrying a bit is not uniform across the network (old vs. new equipment, high vs. low energy or real estate costs, etc.). Using extensive traffic, routing, and cost data from a tier-1 network we show that F-discrepancies are large when looking at individual links but cancel out when considering network-wide cost-sharing. Metering at ingress points is convenient but leads to large M-discrepancies, while TCO-discrepancies are huge. Finally, L-discrepancies are intriguing and esoteric but understanding them is central to determining the cost a customer inflicts on the network.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC
Pages509-522
Number of pages14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Dec 2012
Externally publishedYes
Event2012 ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC 2012 - Boston, MA, United States
Duration: 14 Nov 201216 Nov 2012

Other

Other2012 ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC 2012
CountryUnited States
CityBoston, MA
Period14/11/1216/11/12

Fingerprint

Costs

Keywords

  • backbone network
  • cost sharing
  • fairness
  • network economics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Software
  • Computer Networks and Communications

Cite this

Gyarmati, L., Stanojevic, R., Sirivianos, M., & Laoutaris, N. (2012). Sharing the cost of backbone networks: Cui bono? In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC (pp. 509-522) https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398830

Sharing the cost of backbone networks : Cui bono? / Gyarmati, Laszlo; Stanojevic, Rade; Sirivianos, Michael; Laoutaris, Nikolaos.

Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. 2012. p. 509-522.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Gyarmati, L, Stanojevic, R, Sirivianos, M & Laoutaris, N 2012, Sharing the cost of backbone networks: Cui bono? in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. pp. 509-522, 2012 ACM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC 2012, Boston, MA, United States, 14/11/12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398830
Gyarmati L, Stanojevic R, Sirivianos M, Laoutaris N. Sharing the cost of backbone networks: Cui bono? In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. 2012. p. 509-522 https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398830
Gyarmati, Laszlo ; Stanojevic, Rade ; Sirivianos, Michael ; Laoutaris, Nikolaos. / Sharing the cost of backbone networks : Cui bono?. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC. 2012. pp. 509-522
@inproceedings{bd7da6cf721442bc85c2dc8efa5b457a,
title = "Sharing the cost of backbone networks: Cui bono?",
abstract = "We study the problem of how to share the cost of a backbone network among its customers. A variety of empirical cost-sharing policies are used in practice by backbone network operators but very little ever reaches the research literature about their properties. Motivated by this, we present a systematic study of such policies focusing on the discrepancies between their cost allocations. We aim at quantifying how the selection of a particular policy biases an operator's understanding of cost generation. We identify F-discrepancies due to the specific function used to map traffic into cost (e.g., volume vs. peak rate vs. 95-percentile) and M-discrepancies, which have to do with where traffic is metered (per device vs. ingress metering). We also identify L-discrepancies relating to the liability of individual customers for triggered upgrades and consequent costs (full vs. proportional), and finally, TCO-discrepancies emanating from the fact that the cost of carrying a bit is not uniform across the network (old vs. new equipment, high vs. low energy or real estate costs, etc.). Using extensive traffic, routing, and cost data from a tier-1 network we show that F-discrepancies are large when looking at individual links but cancel out when considering network-wide cost-sharing. Metering at ingress points is convenient but leads to large M-discrepancies, while TCO-discrepancies are huge. Finally, L-discrepancies are intriguing and esoteric but understanding them is central to determining the cost a customer inflicts on the network.",
keywords = "backbone network, cost sharing, fairness, network economics",
author = "Laszlo Gyarmati and Rade Stanojevic and Michael Sirivianos and Nikolaos Laoutaris",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1145/2398776.2398830",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781450317054",
pages = "509--522",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Sharing the cost of backbone networks

T2 - Cui bono?

AU - Gyarmati, Laszlo

AU - Stanojevic, Rade

AU - Sirivianos, Michael

AU - Laoutaris, Nikolaos

PY - 2012/12/17

Y1 - 2012/12/17

N2 - We study the problem of how to share the cost of a backbone network among its customers. A variety of empirical cost-sharing policies are used in practice by backbone network operators but very little ever reaches the research literature about their properties. Motivated by this, we present a systematic study of such policies focusing on the discrepancies between their cost allocations. We aim at quantifying how the selection of a particular policy biases an operator's understanding of cost generation. We identify F-discrepancies due to the specific function used to map traffic into cost (e.g., volume vs. peak rate vs. 95-percentile) and M-discrepancies, which have to do with where traffic is metered (per device vs. ingress metering). We also identify L-discrepancies relating to the liability of individual customers for triggered upgrades and consequent costs (full vs. proportional), and finally, TCO-discrepancies emanating from the fact that the cost of carrying a bit is not uniform across the network (old vs. new equipment, high vs. low energy or real estate costs, etc.). Using extensive traffic, routing, and cost data from a tier-1 network we show that F-discrepancies are large when looking at individual links but cancel out when considering network-wide cost-sharing. Metering at ingress points is convenient but leads to large M-discrepancies, while TCO-discrepancies are huge. Finally, L-discrepancies are intriguing and esoteric but understanding them is central to determining the cost a customer inflicts on the network.

AB - We study the problem of how to share the cost of a backbone network among its customers. A variety of empirical cost-sharing policies are used in practice by backbone network operators but very little ever reaches the research literature about their properties. Motivated by this, we present a systematic study of such policies focusing on the discrepancies between their cost allocations. We aim at quantifying how the selection of a particular policy biases an operator's understanding of cost generation. We identify F-discrepancies due to the specific function used to map traffic into cost (e.g., volume vs. peak rate vs. 95-percentile) and M-discrepancies, which have to do with where traffic is metered (per device vs. ingress metering). We also identify L-discrepancies relating to the liability of individual customers for triggered upgrades and consequent costs (full vs. proportional), and finally, TCO-discrepancies emanating from the fact that the cost of carrying a bit is not uniform across the network (old vs. new equipment, high vs. low energy or real estate costs, etc.). Using extensive traffic, routing, and cost data from a tier-1 network we show that F-discrepancies are large when looking at individual links but cancel out when considering network-wide cost-sharing. Metering at ingress points is convenient but leads to large M-discrepancies, while TCO-discrepancies are huge. Finally, L-discrepancies are intriguing and esoteric but understanding them is central to determining the cost a customer inflicts on the network.

KW - backbone network

KW - cost sharing

KW - fairness

KW - network economics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870872236&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870872236&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/2398776.2398830

DO - 10.1145/2398776.2398830

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9781450317054

SP - 509

EP - 522

BT - Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference, IMC

ER -