skip to main content
10.1145/3419394.3423613acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Cloud Provider Connectivity in the Flat Internet

Published:27 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Tier-1 ISPs have been considered the Internet's backbone since the dawn of the modern Internet 30 years ago, as they guarantee global reachability. However, their influence and importance are waning as Internet flattening decreases the demand for transit services and increases the importance of private interconnections. Conversely, major cloud providers -- Amazon, Google, IBM, and Microsoft-- are gaining in importance as more services are hosted on their infrastructures. They ardently support Internet flattening and are rapidly expanding their global footprints, which enables them to bypass the Tier-1 ISPs and other large transit providers to reach many destinations.

In this paper we seek to quantify the extent to which the cloud providers' can bypass the Tier-1 ISPs and other large transit providers. We conduct comprehensive measurements to identify the neighbor networks of the major cloud providers and combine them with AS relationship inferences to model the Internet's AS-level topology to calculate a new metric, hierarchy-free reachability, which characterizes the reachability a network can achieve without traversing the networks of the Tier-1 and Tier-2 ISPs. We show that the cloud providers are able to reach over 76% of the Internet without traversing the Tier-1 and Tier-2 ISPs, more than virtually every other network.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

imc2020-8-long.mp4

mp4

22.1 MB

References

  1. Level 3. [n.d.]. Network Map. http://www.centurylink-business.com/demos/network-maps.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. APNIC. [n.d.]. Visible ASNs: Customer Populations (Est.). https://stats.labs.apnic.net/aspop/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhard Ager, Nikolaos Chatzis, Anja Feldmann, Nadi Sarrar, Steve Uhlig, and Walter Willinger. 2012. Anatomy of a Large European IXP. In Proc. of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM '12).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Amazon Web Services. [n.d.]. Introducing AWS Global Accelerator. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/11/introducing-aws-global-accelerator/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ruwaifa Anwar, Haseeb Niaz, David Choffnes, Ítalo Cunha, Phillipa Gill, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2015. Investigating Interdomain Routing Policies in the Wild. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. APNIC. [n.d.]. Visible ASNs: Customer Populations (Est.). https://web.archive.org/web/20150821035757/http://stats.labs.apnic.net/aspop/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Todd Arnold, Matt Calder, Italo Cunha, Arpit Gupta, Harsha V Madhyastha, Michael Schapira, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2019. Beating BGP is Harder than we Thought. In Proc. of the ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets '19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Todd Arnold, Ege Gürmeriçliler, Georgia Essig, Arpit Gupta, Matt Calder, Vasileios Giotsas, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2020. (How Much) Does a Private WAN Improve Cloud Performance?. In IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM '20).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. AT&T. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.att.com/Common/attrev1/att_global_network_final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. AWS. [n.d.]. AWS Direct Connect. https://aws.amazon.com/directconnect/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Timm Böttger, Felix Cuadrado, Gareth Tyson, Ignacio Castro, and Steve Uhlig. 2018. Open Connect Everywhere: A Glimpse at the Internet Ecosystem through the Lens of the Netflix CDN. In SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (CCR).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Timm Böttger, Felix Cuadrado, and Steve Uhlig. 2018. Looking for Hypergiants in PeeringDB. In SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (CCR).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Doug Brake. 2019. Submarine Cables: Critical Infrastructure for Global Communications. http://www2.itif.org/2019-submarine-cables.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. CAIDA. [n.d.]. CAIDA Serial-1, Sep 2015 Dataset. http://data.caida.org/datasets/as-relationships/serial-1/20150901.as-rel.txt.bz2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. CAIDA. [n.d.]. CAIDA Serial-2 Dataset. http://data.caida.org/datasets/as-relationships/serial-2/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. CAIDA. [n.d.]. Inferred AS to Organizations Mapping Dataset.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. CAIDA. [n.d.]. Archipelago Monitor Locations. https://www.caida.org/projects/ark/locations/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. CAIDA. [n.d.]. MIDAR tool. https://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/midar/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. CAIDA. [n.d.]. Routeviews Prefix to AS mappings Dataset for IPv4 and IPv6. https://www.caida.org/data/routing/routeviews-prefix2as.xml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Matt Calder, Xun Fan, Zi Hu, Ethan Katz-Bassett, John Heidemann, and Ramesh Govindan. 2013. Mapping the Expansion of Google's Serving Infrastructure. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '13).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Calder, Matt and Flavel, Ashley and Katz-Bassett, Ethan and Mahajan, Ratul and Padhye, Jitendra. 2015. Analyzing the Performance of an Anycast CDN. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC 15).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Carisimo, C. Selmo, J. Alvarez-Hamelin, and A. Dhamdhere. 2019. Studying the Evolution of Content Providers in IPv4 and IPv6 Internet Cores. Computer Comm. (Sep 2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Esteban Carisimo, Carlos Selmo, J. Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin, and Amogh Dhamdhere. 2018. Studying the Evolution of Content Providers in the Internet Core. In Proc. of the Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA) (TMA '18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Nikolaos Chatzis, Georgios Smaragdakis, Anja Feldmann, and Walter Willinger. 2015. Quo Vadis Open-IX? SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (Jan. 2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kai Chen, David R. Choffnes, Rahul Potharaju, Yan Chen, Fabian E. Bustamante, Dan Pei, and Yao Zhao. 2009. Where the Sidewalk Ends: Extending the Internet AS Graph Using Traceroutes from P2P Users. In Proc. of the International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies (CoNEXT '09).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Yi-Ching Chiu, Brandon Schlinker, Abhishek Balaji Radhakrishnan, Ethan Katz-Bassett, and Ramesh Govindan. 2015. Are We One Hop Away from a Better Internet?. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '15).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Google Cloud. [n.d.]. Cloud Interconnect. https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/docs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Tyler Cooper. 2019. Google and Other Tech Giants are Quietly Buying up the Most Important Part of the Internet. https://venturebeat.com/2019/04/06/google-and-other-tech-giants-are-quietly-buying-up-the-most-important-part-of-the-internet/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Amogh Dhamdhere and Constantine Dovrolis. 2010. The Internet is Flat: Modeling the Transition from a Transit Hierarchy to a Peering Mesh. In Proc. of the International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies (CoNEXT '10).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Subhadip Ghosh, Xin Tang, Paul Barford, and Brian Eriksson. 2013. Internet Atlas: A Geographic Database of the Internet. In Proc. of the 5th ACM Workshop on HotPlanet (HotPlanet '13).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Hurricane Electric. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://he.net/about_network.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Damien Fay, Hamed Haddadi, Andrew Thomason, Andrew W. Moore, Richard Mortier, Almerima Jamakovic, Steve Uhlig, and Miguel Rio. 2010. Weighted Spectral Distribution for Internet Topology Analysis: Theory and Applications. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN) (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Romain Fontugne, Anant Shah, and Emile Aben. 2018. The (Thin) Bridges of AS Connectivity: Measuring Dependency Using AS Hegemony. In Proc. of the International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement (PAM '18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Center for International Earth Science Information Network CIESIN Columbia University. 2018. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11. Accessed 22 Feb 2020. (2018). https://doi.org/10.7927/H49C6VHW.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Natalie Gagliordi. 2017. AWS Infrastructure is NowBehind three Main Streaming Media Providers. https://www.zdnet.com/article/aws-infrastructure-is-now-behind-three-main-streaming-media-providers/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Lixin Gao. 2001. On inferring autonomous system relationships in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Lixin Gao and Jennifer Rexford. 2001. Stable Internet Routing without Global Coordination. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN) (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Manaf Gharaibeh, Anant Shah, Bradley Huffaker, Han Zhang, Roya Ensafi, and Christos Papadopoulos. 2017. A Look at Router Geolocation in Public and Commercial Databases. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Phillipa Gill, Martin Arlitt, Zongpeng Li, and Anirban Mahanti. 2008. The Flattening Internet Topology: Natural Evolution, Unsightly Barnacles or Contrived Collapse?. In Proc. of International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement (PAM '08).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Phillipa Gill, Michael Schapira, and Sharon Goldberg. 2012. Modeling on Quicksand: Dealing with the Scarcity of Ground Truth in Interdomain Routing Data. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 42, 1 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Vasileios Giotsas, Matthew Luckie, Bradley Huffaker, and kc claffy. 2014. Inferring Complex AS Relationships. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Brian Goodchild, Yi-Ching Chiu, Rob Hansen, Haonan Lu, Matt Calder, Matthew Luckie, Wyatt Lloyd, David Choffnes, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2017. The Record Route Option is an Option!. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Dan Goodin. 2017. "Suspicious" event routes traffic for big-name sites through Russia. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/12/suspicious-event-routes-traffic-for-big-name-sites-through-russia/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Google. [n.d.]. Google Network Service Tiers. https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Google. [n.d.]. Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) Documentation: Traceroute to external IP addresses. https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/vpc#traceroute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Google. 2019. Google Edge Network: Peering. https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. GTT. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. http://www.as3257.net/lg/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. GTT. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.gtt.net/us-en/our-network/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Nguyen Phong Hoang, Arian Akhavan Niaki, Michalis Polychronakis, and Phillipa Gill. 2020. The Web is Still Small after More than a Decade. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (CCR) (April 2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Hurricane Electric. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. http://lg.he.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. IBM. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. http://lg.softlayer.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Jianhong Xia and Lixin Gao. 2004. On the evaluation of AS relationship inferences [Internet reachability/traffic flow applications]. In IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM '04).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Yuchen Jin, Colin Scott, Amogh Dhamdhere, Vasileios Giotsas, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Scott Shenker. 2019. Stable and Practical AS Relationship Inference with ProbLink. In 16th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ken Keys, Young Hyun, Matthew Luckie, and Kim Claffy. 2013. Internet-Scale IPv4 Alias Resolution with MIDAR. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN) (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon Knight, Hung X. Nguyen, Nickolas Falkner, Rhys Bowden, and Matthew Roughan. 2011. The Internet Topology Zoo. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. John Koetsier. 2019. Report: Apple Is One Of Amazon's Biggest Customers, Spending Over $350 Million Per Year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2019/04/22/report-apple-is-one-of-amazons-biggest-customers-spending-over-350m-per-year/#2a05048d11c4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Craig Labovitz, Scott Iekel-Johnson, Danny McPherson, Jon Oberheide, and Farnam Jahanian. 2010. Internet Inter-domain Traffic. In Proc. of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM '10).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Level 3. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://lookingglass.centurylink.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Aemen Lodhi, Natalie Larson, Amogh Dhamdhere, Constantine Dovrolis, and kc claffy. 2014. Using PeeringDB to Understand the Peering Ecosystem. SIGCOMMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Matthew Luckie. [n.d.]. Scamper. https://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/scamper/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Matthew Luckie. [n.d.]. sc_hoiho. https://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/scamper/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Matthew Luckie, Amogh Dhamdhere, Bradley Huffaker, David Clark, and kc claffy. 2016. bdrmap: Inference of Borders Between IP Networks. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Matthew Luckie, Bradley Huffaker, and k claffy. 2019. Learning Regexes to Extract Router Names from Hostnames. In Proc. of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Matthew Luckie, Brian Huffaker, Amogh Dhamdhere, Vasileios Giotsas, and kc claffy. 2013. AS Relationships, Customer Cones, and Validation. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '13).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Pietro Marchetta, Antonio Montieri, Valerio Persico, Antonio Pescapé, Ítalo Cunha, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2016. How and how much traceroute confuses our understanding of network paths. In 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Local and Metropolitan Area Networks (LANMAN '16).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Microsoft. [n.d.]. Azure ExpressRoute. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/expressroute/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Microsoft. [n.d.]. What is Azure ExpressRoute. https://docs.microsoft.com/enus/azure/expressroute/expressroute-introduction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Microsoft. [n.d.]. Set up peering with Microsoft. https://docs.microsoft.com/enus/azure/internet-peering/overview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Microsoft. [n.d.]. What is routing preference (preview)? https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/routing-preference-overview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Alexandros Milolidakis, Romain Fontugne, and Xenofontas Dimitropoulos. 2019. Detecting Network Disruptions At Colocation Facilities. In IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM '19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Reza Motamedi, Bahador Yeganeh, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, Reza Rejaie, Bruce M. Maggs, and Walt Willinger. 2019. On Mapping the Interconnections in Today's Internet. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. RIPE NCC. 2020. Youtube Hijacking: A RIPE NCC RIS case study.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Jordan Novet. 2019. Apple spends more than $30 million on Amazon's cloud every month, making it one of the biggest AWS customers. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/22/apple-spends-more-than-30-million-on-amazon-web-services-a-month.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. NTT. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://www.gin.ntt.net/looking-glass/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. NTT. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.us.ntt.net/about/ipmap.cfm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. NTT. 2016. Deployment of NTT "Peer Locking" route leak prevention mechanism. http://instituut.net/~job/peerlock_manual.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Ricardo Oliveira, Dan Pei, Walter Willinger, Beichuan Zhang, and Lixia Zhang. 2010. The (in)Completeness of the Observed Internet AS-Level Structure. ToN (Feb. 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Orange. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://looking-glass.opentransit.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Orange. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.orange-business.com/en/connectivity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. PCCW. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.pccwglobal.com/company/about-us/global-reach/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. PeeringDB. [n.d.]. https://peeringdb.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. PeeringDB. [n.d.]. Neutral IX. https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Prajakta Joshi. [n.d.]. Introducing Network Service Tiers: Your Cloud Network, Your Way. https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/08/introducing-Network-Service-Tiers-your-cloud-network-your-way.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Qrator Radar. 2020. This is how you deal with route leaks. https://blog.qrator.net/en/how-you-deal-route-leaks_69/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Waleed Reda, Kirill L. Bogdanov, Alexandros Milolidakis, Marco Chiesa, Gerald Q. Maguire Jr., and Dejan Kostić. 2018. Path Persistence in the Cloud: A Study on the Effects of Recent Traffic Engineering Trends In Cloud Provider Networks. In SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (CCR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. RIPE NCC. [n.d.]. RIPE IPmap. https://ipmap.ripe.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Sandvine. 2019. Sandvine Global Internet Phenomena Report: September 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Brandon Schlinker, Ítalo Cunha, Yi-Ching Chiu, Srikanth Sundaresan, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2019. Internet Performance from Facebook's Edge. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Brandon Schlinker, Hyojeong Kim, Timothy Cui, Ethan Katz-Bassett, Harsha V Madhyastha, Italo Cunha, James Quinn, Saif Hasan, Petr Lapukhov, and Hongyi Zeng. 2017. Engineering Egress with Edge Fabric: Steering Oceans of Content to the World. In Proc. of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM '17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Ben Treynor Sloss. 2018. Expanding Our Global Infrastructure With New Regions and Subsea Cables. https://blog.google/topics/google-cloud/expanding-our-global-infrastructure-new-regions-and-subsea-cables/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. The Internet Society. 2019. Consolidation in the Internet Economy Howwill consolidation impact the Internet's technical evolution and use? https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Telecom Italia Sparkle. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.tisparkle.com/our-assets/global-backbone.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Sprint. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://www.sprint.net/lg/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Sprint. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.sprint.net/network_maps.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Adam Stariano. 2019. How the Internet Travels Across Oceans. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/10/technology/internet-cables-oceans.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Tom Strickx. 2019. How Verizon and a BGP Optimizer Knocked Large Parts of the Internet Offline Today. https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-verizon-and-a-bgp-optimizer-knocked-large-parts-of-the-internet-offline-today/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Tata Communications. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. http://lg.as6453.net/bin/lg.cgi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Tata Communications. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.tatacommunications.com/map/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Team Cymru. [n.d.]. IP-to-ASN Mapping. http://www.team-cymru.com/IP-ASN-mapping.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. TelecomItaliaSparkle. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://gambadilegno.noc.seabone.net/lg/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Telia. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://lg.telia.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Telia. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.teliacarrier.com/Our-Network/Network-map.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Telstra. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://lg.telstraglobal.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. Telstra. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.telstraglobal.com/company/our-network/network-map.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Telxius. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://telxius.com/en/looking-glass-3/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Telxius. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://telxius.com/network/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Verizon. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://enterprise.verizon.com/why-verizon/#network.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. Kevin Vermeulen, Justin P. Rohrer, Robert Beverly, Olivier Fourmaux, and Timur Friedman. 2020. Diamond-Miner: Comprehensive Discovery of the Internet's Topology Diamonds. In 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '20).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  109. Vocus. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. http://tools.vocus.com.au/lg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. Vocus. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.vocus.co.nz/our-network.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Vodafone. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. https://portal.vodafone.com/web/lookingglass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. Vodafone. [n.d.]. Network Map. http://globalnetworkmap.vodafone.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Yangyang Wang and Keyao Zhang. 2016. Quantifying the Flattening of Internet Topology. In Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Future Internet Technologies (CFI '16).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  114. Mark Winther. 2006. Tier 1 ISPs: What They Are and Why They Are Important. Technical Report. International Data Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Florian Wohlfart, Nikolaos Chatzis, Caglar Dabanoglu, Georg Carle, and Walter Willinger. 2018. Leveraging Interconnections for Performance: The Serving Infrastructure of a Large CDN. In Proc. of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMMM '18).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  116. Molly Wood. [n.d.]. We Need to Talk About 'Cloud Neutrality'. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/we-need-to-talk-about-cloud-neutrality/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. Kok-Kiong Yap, Murtaza Motiwala, Jeremy Rahe, Steve Padgett, Matthew Holliman, Gary Baldus, Marcus Hines, Taeeun Kim, Ashok Narayanan, Ankur Jain, et al. 2017. Taking the Edge off with Espresso: Scale, Reliability and Programmability for Global Internet Peering. In Proc. of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) (SIGCOMM '17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  118. Bahador Yeganeh, Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Reza Rejaie, and Walter Willinger. 2019. How Cloud Traffic Goes Hiding: A Study of Amazon's Peering Fabric. In Proc. of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. Bahador Yeganeh, Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Reza Rejaie, and Walter Willinger. 2020. A First Comparative Characterization of Multi-cloud Connectivity in Today's Internet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  120. YuchenJin. [n.d.]. ProbLink Code. https://github.com/YuchenJin/ProbLink.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  121. Jason Zander. 2018. Microsoft Expands Cloud Services in Europe and into Middle East to Meet Growing Customer Demand. Microsoft. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/03/14/microsoft-expands-cloud-services-in-europe-and-into-middle-east-to-meet-growing-customer-demand/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  122. Zayo. [n.d.]. Looking Glass. http://lg.zayo.com/lg.cgi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  123. Zayo. [n.d.]. Network Map. https://www.zayo.com/global-network.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Cloud Provider Connectivity in the Flat 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
            IMC '20: Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference
            October 2020
            751 pages
            ISBN:9781450381383
            DOI:10.1145/3419394

            Copyright © 2020 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: 27 October 2020

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            IMC '20 Paper Acceptance Rate53of216submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate277of1,083submissions,26%

            Upcoming Conference

            IMC '24
            ACM Internet Measurement Conference
            November 4 - 6, 2024
            Madrid , AA , Spain

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader