Internet DRAFT - draft-crowcroft-pricing-the-i
draft-crowcroft-pricing-the-i
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:25:57 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix)
Last-Modified: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:22:00 GMT
ETag: "3ddf76-478e-31c5e898"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 18318
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain
Internet Draft J. Crowcroft
Expire in six months UCL CS
July 3 1996
Pricing the Internet
<draft-crowcroft-pricing-the-i-00.txt>
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet- Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This is a brief note about pricing the Internet. The focus is the use
of pricing for usage of the infrastructure for transmitting and
receiving IP packets, rather than of services such as WWW, FTP,
Archie, Gopher etc. In this we propose subscription based pricing,
and a mechanism based on dynamic host address allocation drawn from a
set of seperately routed addresses to give priority levels.
The idea of subscriptions here is not that all service pricing should
be achieved through subscriptions per se. They are seen as a way of
policing priority access to service bottlenecks, and thus can be
deployed incrementally at weak interconnection points in a network,
or between ISPs. Users of these subscriptions could easily be entire
organisations (represented by network numbers, or CIDRized
collections of network numbers, or ASs and so on). These
organisations could employ refinement techniques to provide more
usage oriented charging if needed.
Introduction
To date, it has been argued by many in the Internet that usage based
charges are not required for the following reasons
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 1]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
1. Applications are elastic, and as the number of users for a given
capacity bottleneck increase, the current queuing and TCP flow
control and congestion control mechanisms schemes effectively share
out the capacity fairly. This means that so long as a user gets any
capacity at all, then the total utility increases with the number of
users, and therefore all is well. (Say we have 100 users and charge
them 1 ECU per year and they get 1 picobit per second; if we have 200
users, they get 1/2 a picobit per second; we can charge them 1/2 an
ECU, make the same profit; if the don't care about when their picobit
is transferred, we have more happy users.)
2. If a user doesn't get good enough response (latency or throughput
- it comes to the same thing whether they want a character echoed, a
web page to pop up, or an FTP to finish so they can print a
document), they can try again when the net is less busy.
3. Incentives - you bill someone so they can STOP someone else using
the net? Why not just increase subsidy to the common good network,
and keep all the users happy?
These arguments are actually not clearcut. For example: 1/ TCP
mechanisms do not operate well below 1 packet per round trip time
with current FIFO "drop tail" routers - even with Random Early Drop
routers, the types of load we are seeing on some links (e.g. the UK
US link is currently operating on a 24 hour average at 300 new
connection attempts per second) will never allow any TCP to stabalise
even if it were long lived (and statistics from NLANR and the UK
National caches show remarkable agreement that the traffic on the net
is 70-90% WWW, and the average web page is around 2K bytes, making
for an average TCP lifetime of 11 packets). In fact, there are large
charges associated with having lots of users - there are router state
overheads, billing overheads, access line (modem) overheads etc etc)
2/ Nowadays,users write programs to drive the network when they get
poor human response.
3/ The majority of users in today's Internet do not share a common
goal, so subsidy based network support is not viable (except possibly
to some extent in portions of the net such as the UK academic one)
voice, (CU-SeeMe,) and the mbone...vat 'n vic applications...
we could take a look at the requirements for a new model for pricing
for the Internet on 3 timescales:
Now(e.g. motivated by the Fat Pipe congestion between the UK and US)
Medium Term - e.g. what we can do with existing IP hosts and routers,
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 2]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
and network management and applications, given some modest new
technology.
Longer Term- what can be done with RSVP and the Integrated Services
Internet traffic model profiles (and related technology, like IPv6).
This note is mostly about NOW.
The Reality Now
Actually, we have pricing, at least from most commercial ISPs - its
based on the access line speed from a subscriber to a provider, and
at a higher level, on the interconnect speed between ISPs. How do
they determine access speeds? They keep TCP and UDP statistics
(traffic matrices), and build a backbone with sufficient capacity for
the number of typical active hosts from all sites t get some minimal
latency - no-one has publicly stated this latency, but my guess is
that it will depend on the "profile" of the ISP. A "High Quality"
(Rolls Royce) ISP would offer throughput and latency that would
match the access line speed closely - e.g. a dialup user at 28kbps
would see most of their line speed to any server site on the ISP.
This doesn't mean that the net has to have backbone capacity at the
sum of the access lines, since many users are idle at any time - and
unlike CBR voice/video traffic, it takes a user request to cause
traffic (though compressed silence suppressed voice, and motion
detecting video sources might behave similarly).
If a typical user just gets web pages and sends email, and maybe
retrieves 100 items a day, they are responsible for bursts of traffic
for which a backbone can be dimensioned quite easily.
E.g. a net with 100,000 users with access lines at 64kbps, or 8Kbytes
per sec, and a user expecting to see almost instantaneous response
for their 11 packet exchange:
If the users make 100 requests a day, there are 10M requests in say
10 hours (assuming the night is idle - a dangerous assumption, but
this is just for illustration). To accommodate the 277 requests per
second, at 2Kbytes, we need back bone switching at 4Mbps. This would
in fact give around 1/4 the performance a user might expect (assuming
the backbone has buffering enough for peak arrival, and TCP
retransmits don't mess things up). To accommodate all users as if
there is no other user, we need a backbone speed of 16Mbps. By
contrast, if we ignored the traffic, and just looked at the lines as
if they might be running 64kbps flatout, we'd need 6Gbps.
Of course, the picture is not this simple since users have quite well
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 3]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
known synchronise busy times (e.g. 9am, just after lunch, etc etc).
[assuming Poisson arrivals would give a somewhat bias view - most
traffic on networks is well known to be self similar, or heavy
tailed...)
However, given this, with 64kbps a high end access speed so far, and
users accesses, not aggregated typically, but arriving at a router on
the backbone, we have a traceable design and pricing problem.
We can choose a latency by selecting an effective bandwidth (or
utilisation) that the user will get from their
ISP to ISP
Between service providers, we have the same picture, except that one
ISP does not know the number of users or traffic profiles of another
ISP. However, they can still measure them at least in a restricted
way (they can measure the sources that venture off the other ISP
only, obviously).
There is a deployment problem for end to end (user to ISP, ISP to
ISP, and ISP to user) billing: charges have to behave in some
reasonable approximation to associative/commutative (perfection
probably isn't called for, but at least close) or obvious unstable
markets develop.
The Problem.
There are two possible sources of problem for the simple approach
above:
1. The price that such the backbone would cost if all users are given
an equal share may not be affordable.
2. Users may offer traffic that IS a significant percentage of their
access link speed (this has the same effect, but sooner).
In this case, we need a way to extract extra money from some users
(priority users). They can subscribe to a service (which implies we
only need classify their traffic, and could authenticate out of band)
or they can reserve the priority on demand (which means we need to
authenticate the reservation in band), and they may want to pay only
for what they actually use, or may be prepared to pay whether they se
it or not (makes the accounting easier - simply start-end time
based).
[Lets ignore payment here - assume logging or something is done -
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 4]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
payment is just matching database to a billing point - its irrelevant
(albeit a complex system, it has no bearing once we have a model for
what we control and what we monitor).
The Future
From the user interface (at the Graphical user interface to a human,
or the API for the novel application programmer) we expect to present
a quality choice - how long will this FTP take, how urgent is this
WWW transaction, how important is this video conference.
However, this can be reflected in the architecture for accounting and
billing quite a few different ways:
The basic choice is: Subscription versus tokens versus online
charges.
At the internal interface (NNI in ATM language) between ISP and ISP,
we can envisage transferring individual charges. We can also envisage
transferring some notion of collective quality (e,g in phone nets,
call blocking probability: in the Internet, packet loss or delay
probability; with RSVP, reservation rejection probability, or for a
high risk ISP, breach of contract for QoS (e.g. exceeding negotiated
CDV, or packet loss delay contract, or minimum cell or packet rate
for an agreed connection).
Priority
One way we could envisage implementing priorities would be to sell
addresses that are treated differently in the routers or are routed
over links which are deliberately shared out to fewer sources. To do
this, we would need routers that could route based on source address
(as well as destination), or we would need to replicate the routing
state for sources that wished to to use a priority based on such a
scheme (or both!). An address might correspond to a range of services
subscribed to (not just to one single one), and those services might
have a limited lifespan (token limited to a maximum usage as a
percentage of one's access line speed per 24*7 for example). This
provides spatial and temporal aggregation of "reservations" again.
Some routers now implement WFQ on a variety of input - typically, by
application, and by input port on a router - it should be possible to
partition up the address space so that a number of net/host from a
site arrive at a bottleneck router VIA a different port (through
policy routes making the default route taken by normal addressed
packets not visible, for example). it would require leaf routers to
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 5]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
participate in the scheme though... [Aside: note some WFQ
implementations are limited in the range of mappings from traffic
class to weighted queue - in general, WFQ can be implemented to a
very fine grain of allocation quite efficiently, however.]
Aggregation and Deployability
The Internet has very good aggregation of information for many
purposes - address aggregation (and name aggregation, and route
aggregation, with CIDRized addresses) all make the net highly
deployable and cheap to manage. We would like subscriptions to be
aggregateable - clearly address based subscriptions would work fairly
well in this regard.
The Cost of Charging
Keeping the cost of charging down is a good idea - this is why
subscription based schemes seem to be sensible - we can see that they
ought to scale only slightly worse than the current flat fee system.
We can implement on-demand reservations by dynamic address
allocation, instead of via a new protocol, too which can then be
locally accounted - this then has the nice property of completely
distributing the onus of charging and authentication, and leaving
policies for how users obtain a priority up to the edge networks
instead of the center.
Archive, Mirrors, Smoke and Caches
Archive servers often confuse debates about charging. However, if we
model a mirror or archive or Web Cache server as an ISP, we have a
good handle on how to include them in our billing model - we simply
regard traffic between a server and a subscriber to a remote ISP as
_transitting_ the ISP that sponsors the server.
Sharing of unused "reservations" - subsidy and policy
Link share has been seen to be important - in fact, it may be key to
deploying any scheme for pricing resources, since the normal
demand/price models don't seem to work well for information
transmission...
Problem
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 6]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
Address Space and router memory are both running out - this scheme
will only work if we can reclaim addresses - we can make it a
precondition of getting "priority addresses" that a
university/customer renumber all their systems to allow the provider
to regain some breathing space.
Problem with schemne - routers don't currently do WFQ on source
address - however, adding soruce address as a possible hash field to
geet to a WFQ is pretty simple. Failing this, assuming that outbound
traffic is subject to the wsame queue on the return path, (at least
for Web access this is true), then basing it on destinatio nat the
far end will also sort of approximate to the same result, except for
one important class of traffic - mbone.
Refinements
A user organisation could purchase address space that is treated with
priority access, is at liberty to _re-sell_ use of that space in lost
of ways. One example could be that inside a university, the addresses
in that space are allocated through DHCP, and users get some number
of tokens that are time based, for how long they can use part of the
address space. Another example might be a public Mbone phone box,
where coins are used to gain adccess to an address. Other schemes are
possible...
Interaction
Settlements and Recursive Settlements - from the middle of the
network outwards. Clearly, if we use an address space that gives
guarantees at one bottleneck (e.g. between the first and second hop
ISPs) There is no guarantee that it works on the next hop too.
However, there is an incentive that can be created between ISPs (and
between bottle-neck providers, or BNPs as we might term them) - lossy
BNPs can be billed by guaranteeing ISPs, for failing to match the
service agreement. This could form the basis for settlements very
easily.
The service contract should be stated, perhaps using the same
parameter set as defined in tspecs and rspecs in RSVP, and through
the same Policy Modules, so that we have a deployment scheme for RSVP
too.
References
B.Carpenter Metrics for Internet settlements draft-carpenter-
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 7]
draft-internet-pricing Pricing the Internet 3 July 1996
metrics-00.txt
Mills, C., Hirsch, G. and Ruth, G., "Internet Accounting Background",
RFC 1272, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Meridian Technology
Corporation, November 1991.
Nevil Brownlee INTERNET-DRAFT draft-ietf-rtfm-acct-meter-mib-01.txt"
Traffic Flow Measurement: Architecture
Brownlee, N., "Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB," Internet Draft,
'Working draft' to become an experimental RFC.
F. P. Kelly, "Tariffs and Effective Bandwidths in Multiservice
Networks", Proc. 14th Int. Teletraffic Cong., 6-10 June 1994 North-
Holland Elsevier Science B.V., 1, 1994, 387--410
F. P. Kelly, "Routing in Circuit-Switched Networks: Optimization,
Shadow prices and Decentralization", Adv. Appl. prob., Vol. 20, :,
112-144, 1988
R. Braden, L.Zhang, S.Berson, S.Herzog, S.Jamin File: draft-ietf-
rsvp-spec-12.txt Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification draft-ietf-rsvp-spec-12.txt
Author's Address
Jon Crowcroft
UCL
Gower St
London WC1E 6BT
England
Tel +44 171 380 7296
Fax +44 171 387 1397
Email: jon@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Jon Crowcroft ^L[Page 8]
