Nash-peering: A new techno-economic framework for internet interconnections

The current framework of Internet interconnections, based on transit and settlement-free peering relations, has systemic problems that often cause peering disputes. Repeated high-profile incidents show that this unfortunate state of affairs stands in the way of better Internet performance, sometimes even leading to large-scale Internet outages. We propose a new techno-economic interconnection framework called Nash-Peering, which is based on the principles of Nash Bargaining in game theory and economics. Nash-Peering constitutes a radical departure from current interconnection practices, providing a broader and more economically efficient set of interdomain relations. In particular, the direction of payment is not determined by the direction of traffic or by rigid customer-provider relationships but based on which AS benefits more from the interconnection. We argue that Nash-Peering can address the root cause of various types of peering disputes.

[1]  Nick Feamster,et al.  MINT: a Market for INternet Transit , 2008, CoNEXT '08.

[2]  Joacim Tåg,et al.  Network Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-Sided Market Analysis , 2011, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[3]  Yong Tan,et al.  An Economic Analysis of Interconnection Arrangements Between Internet Backbone Providers , 2006, Oper. Res..

[4]  Thomas E. Anderson,et al.  Reverse traceroute , 2010, NSDI.

[5]  A. Rubinstein,et al.  The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling , 1985 .

[6]  M. Bacharach Two-person Cooperative Games , 1976 .

[7]  Kshitiz Verma,et al.  Anatomy of the Internet Peering Disputes , 2014, ArXiv.

[8]  Farnam Jahanian,et al.  Internet inter-domain traffic , 2010, SIGCOMM '10.

[9]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[10]  Jens Prüfer,et al.  Interconnection and Competition Among Asymmetric Networks in the Internet Backbone Market , 2006, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[11]  Pablo Rodriguez,et al.  Negotiating Premium Peering Prices , 2016, ACM Trans. Internet Techn..

[12]  Peyman Faratin,et al.  The Growing Complexity of Internet Interconnection , 2008 .

[13]  Amogh Dhamdhere,et al.  A value-based framework for internet peering agreements , 2010, 2010 22nd International Teletraffic Congress (lTC 22).

[14]  J. Gans,et al.  Bilateral Bargaining with Externalities , 2013 .

[15]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Route Bazaar: Automatic Interdomain Contract Negotiation , 2015, HotOS.

[16]  kc claffy,et al.  Measurement and Analysis of Internet Interconnection and Congestion , 2014 .

[17]  Vishal Misra,et al.  Internet economics: the use of Shapley value for ISP settlement , 2010, TNET.

[18]  Kimberly C. Claffy,et al.  Using peeringDB to understand the peering ecosystem , 2014, CCRV.

[19]  Bridger M. Mitchell,et al.  Advances in Routing Technologies and Internet Peering Agreements , 2001 .

[20]  Geoff Huston,et al.  ISP Survival Guide: Strategies for Running a Competitive ISP , 1998 .

[21]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Towards a cost model for network traffic , 2012, CCRV.

[22]  Vishal Misra,et al.  On Cooperative Settlement Between Content, Transit, and Eyeball Internet Service Providers , 2008, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.