skip to main content
10.1145/1544012.1544081acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesconextConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Path brokering for end-host path selection: toward a path-centric billing method for a multipath internet

Published:09 December 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Endhost path selection---the ability for endhosts to specify the paths which their packets should traverse---has been proposed as a promising means for meeting next-generation Internet goals such as high availability and application-tailored routing. However, current proposals have serious shortcomings. First, they typically allow only limited path selection; second, they generally do not provide a billing method by which users may pay operators along their chosen path for service. Moreover, to date, proposals do not consider the use of non-network layer technologies such as MPLS which offer considerable performance advantages.

In this paper, we argue the need for a new type of billing method if a future Internet is to allow path selection, we discuss alternate billing methods and the particular advantages of one method, path brokering. We then propose the use of MPLS in support of endhost path selection via path brokering and discuss the implications of such a system for operators, users and path brokers.

References

  1. J. Ash and J. L. Roux. Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements. RFC 4657, Sept. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, and G. Swallow. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels. RFC 3209 (Proposed Standard), Dec. 2001. Updated by RFCs 3936, 4420, 4874. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. H. Chang, S. Jamin, and W. Willinger. To peer or not to peer: Modeling the evolution of the internet's as-level topology. INFOCOM 2006. 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. Proceedings, pages 1--12, April 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D. G. Copeland and J. L. McKenney. Airline reservations systems: lessons from history. MIS Q., 12(3): 353--370, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Estan, A. Akella, and S. Banerjee. Achieving good end-to-end service using bill-pay. In Hotnets-V, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Farrel, J.-P. Vasseur, and J. Ash. A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture. RFC 4655, Aug. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. N. Feamster, L. Gao, and J. Rexford. How to lease the internet in your spare time. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 37(1): 61--64, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. K. Kompella and J. Lang. Procedures for Modifying the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP). RFC 3936, Oct. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. F.c.c. vote sets precedent on unfettered web usage. www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/technology/02fcc.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. W. B. Norton. Internet service providers and peering. In Proceedings of NANOG 19, Albuquerque, NM, June 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Odlyzko. The delusions of net neutrality. 36th Telecommunications Policy Research Conf. Proceedings, Sept. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. M. B. Pascoal. Implementations and empirical comparison of k shortest loopless path algorithms. The Ninth DI-MACS Implementation Challenge: The Shortest Path Problem (http://www.dis.uniromal.it/challenge9/), November 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Pelsser and O. Bonaventure. Rsvp-te extensions for interdo-main lsps, October 2002. Work in progress, draft-pelsser-rsvp-te-interdomain-lsp-00.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, and R. Callon. Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture. RFC 3031, Jan. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. Xu, Z. Duan, Z.-L. Zhang, and J. Chandrashekar. On properties of internet exchange points and their impact on as topology and relationship. In NETWORKING, 2004, pp. 284--295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. W. Xu and J. Rexford. Miro: multi-path interdomain routing. In SIGCOMM '06: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, pages 171--182, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. X. Yang. An internet architecture for user-controlled routes. NSF FIND Proposal, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. X. Yang, D. Clark, and A. Berger. Nira: A new routing architecture. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. X. Yang and D. Wetherall. Source selectable path diversity via routing deflections. In SIGCOMM '06: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, pages 159--170, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Path brokering for end-host path selection: toward a path-centric billing method for a multipath internet

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CoNEXT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM CoNEXT Conference
          December 2008
          526 pages
          ISBN:9781605582108
          DOI:10.1145/1544012

          Copyright © 2008 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 9 December 2008

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate198of789submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader