Seserv workshop   costas kalogiros - tussle analysis examples dns-tcp
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Seserv workshop costas kalogiros - tussle analysis examples dns-tcp

on

  • 942 views

Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS, TCP protocols

Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS, TCP protocols

Statistics

Views

Total Views
942
Views on SlideShare
942
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Tussle analysis helps better understand the interrelations between Future Internet technologies and socio-economics. Its purpose is to study how such stakeholders interact by exploiting Future Internet technologies to advance their economic interests and influence economic outcomes. The presentation will motivate and introduce a generic methodology for tussle analysis by using several case studies and discuss its complexity.
  • The webpage comes from 82.98.86.167, instead of twitter.com (199.59.148.82)
  • Verisign created wildcard DNS record for all .com and .net domain names not yet registeredSeptember 15 – October 4, 2003

Seserv workshop   costas kalogiros - tussle analysis examples dns-tcp Seserv workshop costas kalogiros - tussle analysis examples dns-tcp Presentation Transcript

  • SESERV Socio-Economic Services for European Research Projects http://www.seserv.org European Seventh Framework CSA FP7-2010-ICT-258138Illustrative Tussle analysis for DNS, TCPCostas Kalogiros (AUEB)The interplay of economics andtechnology for the Future InternetSESERV WorkshopAthens, Greece, January 31, 2012© 2011 The SESERV Consortium 1
  • Mistyping a URL… she receives a webpage full whoImagine an inexperienced user ofadvertisements…mistypes the twitter.com URL … and instead of getting an error … … in Greek! (twitterw.com does not exist) © 2012 The SESERV Consortium 2
  • Tussle analysis case study: name resolution DNS registry Increased “cost” A DNS registry for End-Usersstrategies/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 optimizedstrategies/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
  • 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 TCPstrategies/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
  • 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
  • Future Internet Stakeholder RolesIndustry Standardization ConsortiumsConsumer 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
  • 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