Redesigning CDN-Broker Interactions for Improved Content Delivery

Mukerjee, Matthew K.; Bozkurt, Ilker Nadi; Ray, Devdeep; Maggs, Bruce M.; Seshan, Srinivasan; Zhang, Hui

doi:10.1145/3143361.3143366

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a different instance, TripAdvisor uses multiple CDNs, some which have multiple CIDRs for the same domain URL. In summary, there exists a non-trivial mapping of which server is chosen, and the process of how that decision is made is opaque to end users and sometimes to the CDN itself [45]. From the experiments, we make the following observations: 1.…”

Section: Q2: How Do Cdns Work?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each of the entities contributes to the end-to-end performance of CDNs. For example, CDN brokers have been shown to cause shifts in the traffic patterns observed by a CDN, leading to performance and efficiency issues [45]. Adding MEC providers to the mix just makes the situation worse, particularly since there are many kinds of MEC service providers: a cellular provider acting as MEC provider [9], a cloud provider acting as a proxy for a cellular provider's MEC [19,32], and standalone edge providers that have a footprint across many cellular providers [10, 20,21].…”

Section: Q3: Who Owns Performance In Mec-cdn?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While mobile network providers are more interested in load balancing and reusing IP address blocks across different customers, for CDNs the same practice makes geo-localizing IPs difficult with respect to the location of appropriate cache servers at their points of presence. Despite convergence of the two in some cases [31], introduction of new entities such as CDN brokers, has been shown to invalidate many other traditional assumptions, even excluding CDNs themselves in the cache server selection [45]. We posit that such opaqueness will continue to exist in 5G with MEC, unless there is a disruptive design change in how CDNs are deployed and, more importantly, how DNS is managed in the MEC-CDN ecosystem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

DNS Does Not Suffice for MEC-CDN

Hsu

Choncholas

Bhardwaj

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 19th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile edge computing (MEC) can transform mobile networks into a new infrastructure tier for services requiring low response times, such as those providing content to emerging AR/VR, autonomous driving, and other types of applications. To be successful, the CDNs operating in this MEC infrastructure tier-MEC-CDNs-will need to ensure end user applications gain access to a cache server in a fast and accurate manner. This paper sheds light on the challenges that the current mobile DNS architecture poses toward achieving this goal, and presents ideas on how to re-architect the existing DNS architecture to enable CDNs to provide low-latency content delivery from the edge. CCS CONCEPTS • Networks → Mobile networks; • Computer systems organization → Distributed architectures.

show abstract

Section: Q2: How Do Cdns Work?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Q3: Who Owns Performance In Mec-cdn?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

DNS Does Not Suffice for MEC-CDN

Hsu

Choncholas

Bhardwaj

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 19th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interconnection companies such as Megaport [57], Packet Fabric [61], Epsilon [30], and ConsoleConnect [23] offer on-demand connectivity to cloud providers (e.g., Amazon AWS, Google GCC, MS Azure) for networks connected to their Points of Presence (PoPs). The use of marketplaces or brokers has been considered as well in the context of CDNs [59]. While these approaches could easily be extended to allow any two networks to establish on-demand agreements, they fail to guarantee business policy confidentiality and to offer a mechanism to build trust -requirements that Dynam-IX respects.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynam-IX

Marcos

Chiesa

Müller

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autonomous Systems (ASes) can reach hundreds of networks via Internet eXchange Points (IXPs), allowing improvements in traffic delivery performance and competitiveness. Despite the benefits, any pair of ASes needs first to agree on exchanging traffic. By surveying 100+ network operators, we discovered that most interconnection agreements are established through ad-hoc and lengthy processes heavily influenced by personal relationships and brand image. As such, ASes prefer long-term agreements at the expense of a potential mismatch between actual delivery performance and current traffic dynamics. ASes also miss interconnection opportunities due to trust reasons. To improve wide-area traffic delivery performance, we propose Dynam-IX, a framework that allows operators to build trust cooperatively and implement traffic engineering policies to exploit the rich interconnection opportunities at IXPs quickly. Dynam-IX offers a protocol to automate the interconnection process, an intent abstraction to express interconnection policies, a legal framework to digitally handle contracts, and a distributed tamper-proof ledger to create trust among ASes. We build and evaluate a Dynam-IX prototype and show that an AS can establish tens of agreements per minute with negligible overhead for ASes and IXPs.

show abstract

“…We refer to CDN selecting infrastructures as Meta-CDN services. Known instances of third-party Meta-CDNs [15,22,23,30] provide services to implement custom and dynamic request mapping policies to direct traffic to the different CDNs. The characteristics of third-party Meta-CDNs have been studied in part on the example of Conviva [2,13,22] and Cedexis [17] as the prevalent operators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissecting Apple's Meta-CDN during an iOS Update

Blendin¹,

Bendfeldt

Poese³

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Content delivery networks (CDN) contribute more than 50% of today's Internet traffic. Meta-CDNs, an evolution of centrally controlled CDNs, promise increased flexibility by multihoming content. So far, efforts to understand the characteristics of Meta-CDNs focus mainly on third-party Meta-CDN services. A common, but unexplored, use case for Meta-CDNs is to use the CDNs mapping infrastructure to form self-operated Meta-CDNs integrating thirdparty CDNs. These CDNs assist in the build-up phase of a CDN's infrastructure or mitigate capacity shortages by offloading traffic. This paper investigates the Apple CDN as a prominent example of self-operated Meta-CDNs. We describe the involved CDNs, the request-mapping mechanism, and show the cache locations of the Apple CDN using measurements of more than 800 RIPE Atlas probes worldwide. We further measure its load-sharing behavior by observing a major iOS update in Sep. 2017, a significant event potentially reaching up to an estimated 1 billion iOS devices. Furthermore, by analyzing data from a European Eyeball ISP, we quantify thirdparty traffic offloading effects and find third-party CDNs increase their traffic by 438% while saturating seemingly unrelated links.

show abstract

Redesigning CDN-Broker Interactions for Improved Content Delivery

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

DNS Does Not Suffice for MEC-CDN

DNS Does Not Suffice for MEC-CDN

Dynam-IX

Dissecting Apple's Meta-CDN during an iOS Update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About