Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An architecture for internet inter-domain interconnections and bandwidth trading towards effective NGN deployment

  • Published:
annals of telecommunications - annales des télécommunications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) is developing an architecture for Next Generation Network (NGN) to provide end-to-end Quality of Service (e2e QoS), for which Internet service provider (ISP) interconnections play a key role. Furthermore, for an effective e2e QoS-guaranteed interconnection across multiple ISPs, it is of a great help to develop a framework which enables ISPs to trade their unused network capacity. This study presents Hub-and-Spoke (H&S) interconnection model, where the hub called Neutral Internet Business eXchange (NIBX) arranges Bandwidth Trading (BT) on the basis of the market mechanism. After introducing qualitative and quantitative justifications of the H&S NIBX interconnection model, we propose a platform prototype for BT based upon the H&S NIBX architecture. Presented also are some detailed descriptions of key functional elements together with decision models embedded in the functions. Operations scenarios show potential benefits of the NIBX + BT architecture for ensuring e2e QoS, the ultimate goal of ITU-T’s NGN.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In [18], authors argue that many of the market interconnection settlements are distance-adjusted: “... with a two-network interconnection, the market interconnection price can be adjusted to 50% in the market if we assume each network has half of the distance of the e2e interconnection distance.”

  2. Our argument does not assume a sudden change, but assume that a next generation Internet infrastructure will be constructed separately from the current best-effort infrastructure as in the case of Korea NGN project (called BcN, Broadband convergence Network; see [7]). We suppose that the migration toward the next generation Internet will follow the process of gradual immersion.

  3. What we mean by scalability here is the complexity in transactions associated with interconnection activities across multiple providers. In fact, one can find the similar benefits in the case of the air transportation system, which has already moved from point-to-point to hub-&-spoke system.

  4. The news article [7] points out that the interconnection scheme among providers is really an institutional (not technological) hurdle to overcome for an effective deployment of BcN in Korea.

  5. This list is not exhaustive; for example, other important issue such as security is omitted. The following items were selected on the basis of the natural role of the NIBX+BT architecture in the course of responding to anonymous reviewers’ comments. We appreciate anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

  6. Remark that it is not a major role of the NIBX+BT architecture to gather routing information and compute path lengths. These functions belong to iBTM at each ISP(refer to Fig. 4 and explanation on iBTM), for which many concrete solutions have already been suggested (for e.g., [16, 26, 27, 30, 45], etc.).

  7. Capacity-based pricing can take various forms in its implementation. [47] presents a good guide to communication network pricing models including capacity-based pricing and auction.

References

  1. Bailey J, McKnight L (1997) Scalable Internet interconnection agreements and integrated services. In: Kahin B, Keller JH (eds) Coordinating the Internet. MIT Press, MA, pp 309–324

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bernet Y, Binder J, Blake S, Carlson S, Carpenter S, Keshav S, Davies S, Ohlman B, Verma D, Wang Z, Weiss W (1999) A framework for differentiated services. Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Work in progress, March

  3. Biswas S, Saha D, Mandal N (2003) Intercarrier bandwidth exchange: an engineering framework. IEEE Communications Magazine, pp 130–138, January

  4. Boyle J, Cohen R, Durham D, Herzog S, Rajan R, Sastry A (2000) The COPS (common open policy service) protocol. Request for Comments 2748, Internet Engineering Task Force, January

  5. Bouillet E, Mitra D, Ramakrishnan KG (2002) The structure and management of service level agreements in networks. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 20(4):691–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burgstahler L, Dolzer K, Hauser C, Jahnert J, Junghans S, Macian C, Payer W (2003) Beyond technology: the missing pieces for QoS success,” Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Revisiting IP QoS in conjunction with the ACM SIGCOMM Conf., August

  7. Choi KS (2007) Building a legislative bill for BcN interoperations among telecom providers (in Korean). Digital Times Korea, March 20, (available at http://www.dt.co.kr)

  8. Davie B (2003) Deployment experience with differentiated services. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf., August

  9. Fankhauser G, Stiller B, Plattner B (1999) Arrow: A flexible architecture for an accounting and charging infrastructure in the next generation Internet. Netnomics 1:201–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Franks LS, Gee TM (2005) Bandwidth trading and risk management, developing a market. Tutorial Report (available at http://www.riskcenter.com)

  11. Fuzesi P et al (2003) Provisioning of QoS enabled interdomain services. Comput Commun 26:1070–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Georgatsos P et al. (2004) Provider-level service agreements for interdomain QoS delivery. Proc. 4th Int’l Workshop on Advanced Internet Charging and QoS Tech., Sept

  13. Goderis D et al. (2002) Service level specifications semantics, parameters, and negotiation requirements. IETF Internet Draft(draft-tequila-sls-02.txt), Feb

  14. d’Halluin Y, Forsyth PA, Vetzal KR (2002) Managing capacity for telecommunications networks under uncertainty. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 10(4):579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hancock R, Karagiannis G, Loughney J, van den Bosch S (2005) Next steps in signaling (NSIS): framework. RFC 4080, IETF, June

  16. Hnatyshin V, Sethi AS (2006) Architecture for dynamic and fair distribution of bandwidth. Int J Netw Manage 16:317–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Howarth MP et al (2005) Provisioning for interconnection quality of service: the MESCAL approach. IEEE Commun Mag 43(6):129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hwang J, Weiss MBH (2008) Service differentiation economic models and analysis of market-based QoS interconnections. Telemat Inform 25:262–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. ITU-T Rec. M.3060 (2006) Principles for the management of the next general networks. March

  20. ITU-T Rec. Y.1543 (2007) Measurements in IP networks for inter-domain performance assessment. November

  21. ITU-T Rec. Y.2001 (2004) General overview of NGN functions and characteristics. December

  22. ITU-T Rec. Y.2011 (2004) General reference model for next generation networks. October

  23. ITU-T Rec. Y.2173 (ex. Y.mpm) (2008) Management of performance measurement for NGN. May

  24. ITU-T TD 642-WP3 Y.ngn-account-R2 (2008) Requirements and framework allowing accounting and charging capabilities in NGN (release 2). May

  25. Kwak JH (2004) The case study of ACCC and Telstra disputes on the Internet interconnection (in Korean). Information and Communications Policy 16(3):63–68

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly F, Maulloo A, Tan D (1998) Rate control in communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. J Oper Res Soc 49

  27. Kenyon C, Cheliotis G (2001) Stochastic models for telecom commodity prices. Comput Netw 36:533–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim D (2006) A new architecture of internet interconnection with bandwidth trading under the NGN paradigm. Proc. INFORMS Telecommunication Conf., Dallas, TX

  29. Kim D (2008) Development of trading model of telecom bandwidth commodities, Working Paper.

  30. Kumaran K, Mandjes M, Mitra D, Saniee I (1999) Resource usage and charging in a multi-service multi-QoS packet network. Proc. MIT/Tufts Workshop on Internet Service Quality Economics, Cambridge, MA

  31. Lipperta S, Spagnolo G (2008) Internet peering as a network of relations. Telecommun Policy 32:33–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. MacKie-Mason JK (1997) A smart market for resource reservation in multiple quality of service information network. Technical Report Draft of Univ. Michigan and NBER

  33. Mantar HA, Hwang J, Okumus IT, Chapin SJ (2004) A scalable model for interbandwidth broker resource reservation and provisioning. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 22:2019–2034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin J, Nilsson A (2002) On service level agreements for IP networks. Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, pp 855–863

  35. Mayfield R (2002) The market is open: fundamentals and strategies for taking advantage of a neutral exchange, in The Telecoms Trading Revolution, pp 11–24.

  36. Menasce DA (2004) Mapping service-level agreements in distributed applications. IEEE Internet Computing, Sept./Oct. Issue, pp 100–102

  37. Nguyen TMT, Boukhatem N (2004) Service level negotiation and COPS-SLS protocol. Ann Telecommun 59:55–69

    Google Scholar 

  38. Norton WB (2003) The evolution of the U.S. Internet peering ecosystem. White Paper, November

  39. Ogino N, Suzuki M (2002) Proposal of a price-based inter-AS policy routing to improve ASes’ profit. IEICE Trans Commun E85-B:137–146

    Google Scholar 

  40. Open Standard & Internet Association (2007) Developing standard and implementation strategy of VoIP clearinghouse. NIDA(National Internet Development Agency, Korea) Report, October 31

  41. Pongpaibool P, Kim HS (2004) Providing end-to-end service level agreements across multiple ISP networks. Comput Netw 46:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Singh A 2008 Telecom brokerage firm launches free VoIP network design services. TMCnet (online magazine), April 22 (available at http://www.tmcnet.com)

  43. Solomon B (2008) The role of bandwidth management in the age of VoIP. TMCnet (online magazine), March 20 (available at http://www.tmcnet.com)

  44. Song J et al (2008) Scalable network architecture for flow-based traffic control. ETRI J 20(2):205–215

    Google Scholar 

  45. Turner DM, Prevelakis V, Keromytis AD (2005) A market-based bandwidth charging framework. Working Paper

  46. Um TW et al (2008) Soft-state bandwidth reservation mechanism for slotted optical burst switching networks. ETRI J 20(2):216–226

    Google Scholar 

  47. Weber R, Courcoubetis C (2003) Pricing Communication Networks: Economics, Technology and Modelling. Wiley

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea

    Dohoon Kim

Authors
  1. Dohoon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dohoon Kim.

Additional information

This research was supported by the Kyung Hee University Research Fund in 2004 (KHU-20040906).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, D. An architecture for internet inter-domain interconnections and bandwidth trading towards effective NGN deployment. Ann. Telecommun. 63, 607–619 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-008-0057-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12243-008-0057-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation