This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
• Breakout working sessions: focus groups • To exchange views and advance SESERV awareness on FI
technologies
• Discussion panel on the role of economics to the evolution of Internet • Mr. M. BONIFACE (ITI), • Dr. B. BRISCOE (BT), • Ms. A. COOPER (CDT), • Prof. R. MASON (UoExeter), • Mr. N. LE SAUZE (ALBLF), • Prof. G.D.STAMOULIS (AUEB), • Prof. B. STILLER (UZH)
Key statements of Invited Speakers • B.Briscoe: The “byte” is not the right charging metric –
A flow should be charged on its contribution to congestion
• F.von Bornstaedt: “Sending Party Network Pays” is the only way to do E2E QoS - increases accountability and trust among providers – no problem with net neutrality
• A. Cooper: Competition among ISPs in the UK does not regulate the market: almost all ISPs employ traffic discrimination, so no consumer choice
• R.Mason: Net neutrality should be evaluated – more analysis based on models and less ideology is needed
Introduction to tussle analysis methodology & DNS, TCP case-studies
Preliminary tussle analysis for QoS-aware ISP interconnection (ETICS project)
Focus group 1
Focus group 2
Focus group 3
• Internet protocol designers should take into account the lessons learned from tussles related to other popular Internet protocols
• Tussle analysis helps in understanding: • how Internet stakeholders may interact by exploiting Future Internet technologies to advance their socio-economic interests • and their implications to other stakeholders & functionalities
• Allowing ISPs to control major properties of their service offerings (such as range of destinations, prices, etc.) increases chances of adoption and can even have positive effects to other Internet functionalities (e.g. routing)
• SLA monitoring technologies can have an impact on ISPs’ incentives for correctly dimensioning their backup paths
• Focus groups as an interactive tussle analysis game where stakeholder representatives can express how they perceive an Internet technology under investigation
• Key instrument for SESERV in bridging the gap between those who build and use/study the Internet
Preliminary findings of tussle analysis focus groups
User-centricity and transparency with an emphasis on wireless networks • Users may need trust-enabling technologies and economic incentives for relaying traffic • ISPs may be concerned about losing control of their networks but they could be willing to
release that control, if it would increase user satisfaction
Content and service delivery architectures, with an emphasis on Information-centric technologies • ISPs lower their transit costs and gain a larger share of the content delivery market with deploying ICN architectures and their own CDNs • Traditional stakeholders whose interests are offended will respond, e.g. transit ISPs will evolve and enter the content delivery market (interconnect “islands of information”) • Generally, a co-existence of traditional and ISP-owned CDNs is envisioned
Interconnection agreements and monitoring, with an emphasis on technologies promoting collaboration between ISPs for QoS-aware service provision • Smaller ISPs are likely to retreat from the market, or collaborate with other small ISPs to increase their control during QoS path setup • End users will probably demand some kind of SLA monitoring tool that allows to make sure that the premium rates they have asked and payed for are provided
• Perform a survey of technologies for each of the functionalities by studying a broader set of Challenge 1 research projects. • Focus on the innovative aspects of a technology and its