Resource Negotiation, Pricing and QoS for Adaptive Multimedia Applications Xin Wang With Henning Schulzrinne Internet Real -Time Laboratory Columbia University http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~xinwang/RNAP.html

bandwidth, loss, delay, jitter, availability, price Today’s IP Networks Service Level Agreements (SLA) are negotiated based on Application Specific Needs bandwidth, loss, delay, jitter, availability, price Application SLA ISP Networks & Applications IP Network Service User Large number of new applications are appearing in the Internet. This includes the real-time audio, video, and mission-critical financial data. This provides ISP more business opportunity, and also challenge. The value-added services normally require certain service expectations. Since different applications have different requirements in bandwidth and quality, network resource provision is challenging. SCOPE Growth of new IP services and applications with different bandwidth and quality of service requirements Presents opportunities and challenges for service providers 5/28/2019

The needs of Next Generation Service Providers Revenue from the traditional connectivity services (raw bandwidth) is declining Increase revenue by offering innovative IP services: Deliever high-margin, differentiated services VoIP, VPN, Applications Hosting etc Gain competitive advantage by deploying new services more quickly, placing a premium on time to market and time to scale Reduce cost and operation complexity Evolve from static network management to dynamic service provisioning Reduce costs by automating network and service management Service provider needs to provide different premium services, without big cost. The network management and resource provisioning should be automatic and fast. 5/28/2019

Internet Structure End User LAN POP NAP Backbone Provider Regional Provider Private Network Backbone Provider NAP LAN End User Backbone Provider POP Private Peering Before deciding on the services for the internet, let’s look at the current Internet situation. Network is generally divided into different management domains, with direct peering or connect through Network Access Point (NAP). The Network Access Point (NAP) allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to interconnect and exchange information among themselves. The exchanging of Internet traffic is generally referred to as "peering". 5/28/2019

NORDUnet Traffic Analysis Before further describes the service policy, we show some traffic statistics of NORDUnet NORDUnet interconnects the Nordic national networks for research and education and connects these networks to the rest of the world. The current physical connections are shown on the connectivity map. NORDUnet provides its services by a combination of leased lines and Internet services provided by other international operators. 5/28/2019

NORDUnet Traffic Analysis Results: All access links (interconnect ISP’s or connect private networks to ISP’s), including trans-Atlantic links, can get congested. Average utilization is low: 20-30% Peak utilization can be high: up to 100% Congestion Ratio (peak/average): as high as 5. Peak duration can be very long: Chicago NAP congested once in 8/00, lasted 7 hours. TeleGlobe links congested every workday in 8/00 and 9/00 Reasons: Frequent re-configuration and upgrading;Load balancing to protect own users. 5/28/2019

Solution - Over-provisioning? Add enough bandwidth for all applications in access network / backbone Will over-provisioning be sufficient to avoid congestion? How much bandwidth is enough to meet diverse user requirements? No intrinsic upper limit on bandwidth use How much does it cost to add capacity? Demand: Availability of more bandwidth will create its own demand through increasing utilization of bandwidth intensive applications” .real-time audio//video, 3D imaging, virtual reality, etc. Supply: Cost of transportation using fiber optics is declining drastically. However, network management cost: switches and routers, state of the art POP, data centers, etc, will cost money. QoS: Protect the valuable applications through QoS. But will QoS add big complexity? Providing different servers needs different pricing, otherwise, everyone will ask the best service and end up not services. Applications do not have the motivation to adapt. 5/28/2019

Bandwidth Pricing Reality: leased bandwidth price has not been dropping consistently and dramatically. Facts: 300 mile T1 price (rent): 1987: $10,000/month 1992: $4,000/month 1998: $6,000/month (thanks to high Internet demand) 100-mile cabling cost in 1998: $65,000 Links connecting ISP’s are very expensive 5/28/2019

Bandwidth Pricing (cont.) Facts: International Frame Relay with 256-kbps: thousands dollars a month. Transit DS-3 link: $50,000/month between carriers. Transit OC-3 link: $150,000/month between carriers. Chicago NAP: $3,900/month/DS-3, $4,700/month/OC-3. T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines) T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s) OC3 - 155 megabits per second (100 T1s) OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s) OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s) OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s) The price for a Chicago NAP connection is distance sensitive and based on the location where the ISP's network meets Ameritech's. ATM pricing also varies with contract length with price deductions for longer term contracts. NAP connection prices start at $3,900 per month for a DS3 and $4,700 per month for an OC3. Duration of 12, 36 or 60 month terms are available. Bandwidth may be cheap, but not free Higher-speed connection -- higher recurring monthly costs. Option - manage the existing bandwidth better, with a service model which uses bandwidth efficiently. 5/28/2019

Solution - Other Service Models Quality of Service (QoS) Condition the network to provide predictability to an application even during high user demand Provide multiple levels of QoS to meet diverse user requirements How efficient a QoS mechanism manages the bandwidth? How much a user needs to pay for QoS? Application adaptation Source rate adaptation based on network conditions can avoid congestion and lead to efficient bandwidth utilization Why would an application adapt? 5/28/2019

A more Efficient Service Model Dynamic resource negotiation Network commits resources for short intervals - better response to changes in network conditions and user demand Usage-,QoS-,demand-sensitive pricing Allow network to price services based on resources consumed, and allocate resources based on user willingness-to-pay Give user incentive to select appropriate service based on requirements, adapt demand during network resource scarce in response to price increase 5/28/2019

What We Add to Enable This Model? A dynamic resource negotiation protocol: RNAP An abstract Resource Negotiation And Pricing protocol Enables user and network (or two network domains) to dynamically negotiate multiple services with different QoS characteristics Enables network to formulate and communicate prices and charges Lightweight and flexible: embedded in other protocols, e.g., RSVP, or implemented independently Ensures service predictability:commit service and price for an interval Supports multi-party negotiation: senders, receivers, or both Reliable and scalable A demand-sensitive pricing model Enables differential charging for supporting multiple levels of services; services priced to reflect the cost and long-term user demand Allows for congestion pricing to motivate user adaptation 5/28/2019

What we add... (cont’d) Demonstrate a complete resource negotiation framework (RNAP, pricing model, user adaptation) on test-bed network Simulations show significant advantages relative to static resource allocation and fixed pricing: Much lower service blocking rate under resource contention Service assurances under large or bursty offered loads, without high provision complexity, or over-provision cost Higher perceived user benefit and higher network revenue 5/28/2019