Accessibility and coverage measurement by network peering information.ABSTRACT This study provides a new methodology for the accessibility and coverage measurement utilizing the peering Internet Internet Publicly accessible computer network connecting many smaller networks from around the world. It grew out of a U.S. Defense Department program called ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), established in 1969 with connections between computers at the sub-network among the Internet Backbone (communications, networking) Internet backbone - High-speed networks that carry Internet traffic. These communications networks are provided by companies such as AT&T, GTE, IBM, MCI, Netcom, Sprint, UUNET and consist of high-speed links in the T1, T3, OC1 and OC3 ranges. Providers (IBPs). The study provides many different ways to measure accessibility and coverage under peering sub-network. The analysis indicates that private peering and public peering should be treated differently in measuring node's accessibility and network's coverage. The study also shows that these measurements provide a potential decision model when the IBPs have many choices such as survivability sur·viv·a·ble adj. 1. Capable of surviving: survivable organisms in a hostile environment. 2. That can be survived: a survivable, but very serious, illness. and reliability to optimally serve their own network. Keywords Keywords are the words that are used to reveal the internal structure of an author's reasoning. While they are used primarily for rhetoric, they are also used in a strictly grammatical sense for structural composition, reasoning, and comprehension. : IBP IBP (Fraunhofer) Institut für Bauphysik (Stuttgart, Germany) IBP Interactive Business Planner IBP Integrated Bar of the Philippines IBP International Buyer Program , peering, accessibility, coverage 1. INTRODUCTION It is known that the current Internet industry has around 30 Internet Backbone Providers (IBPs) and over 10,000 Internet Service Providers Internet service provider (ISP) Company that provides Internet connections and services to individuals and organizations. For a monthly fee, ISPs provide computer users with a connection to their site (see data transmission), as well as a log-in name and password. (ISPs). The IBPs provide high bandwidth bandwidth Measurement of the capacity of a communications signal. For digital signals, the bandwidth is the data speed or rate, measured in bits per second (bps). For analog signals, it is the difference between the highest and lowest frequency components, measured in hertz long-haul long haul n. 1. A long distance: It is a long haul from New York to Los Angeles. 2. A long period of time: Over the long haul the candidates performed well. transmission, routing and interconnection in·ter·con·nect v. in·ter·con·nect·ed, in·ter·con·nect·ing, in·ter·con·nects v.intr. To be connected with each other: The two buildings interconnect. v.tr. to ISPs and to their own vertically integrated ISPs and web-hosting services (Cremer Cremer is a surname, and may refer to:
The part of a network that handles the major traffic. It employs the highest-speed transmission paths in the network and may also run the longest distances. provider of Internet plays a critical role in connecting for ISPs to the whole Internet. As the number of IBPs and ISPs increases, the Internet interconnection becomes more complex. There are two types of Internet interconnection between the IBPs: peering and transit transit, in astronomy, passage of a body across a meridian or passage of a small body across the visible disk of a larger one. (The passage of a large body across a smaller one is called an eclipse or occultation. . The main difference among these types is in the financial rights and obligation that they generate to their customers. In this research we focus only on the peering between the IBPs as a method of interconnection. Since the first academic and research Internet backbone, NSFNET (National Science Foundation NETwork) The network funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, which linked five supercomputer sites across the country in the mid-1980s. Universities were also allowed to connect to it. by the National Science Foundation (NSF NSF - National Science Foundation ) was launched, a number of commercial backbone companies including PSINet, UUNET (UUNET Technologies, Inc., Fairfax, VA, www.uunet.net) Founded in 1987, UUNET was the first commercial Internet service provider. Originally offering e-mail and news, it became a full Internet service organization providing dial-up and leased line accounts as well as archive space for established the commercial Internet exchange (networking, body) Commercial Internet eXchange - (CIX) The CIX is a non-profit, 501(c)6, trade association coordinating Internet services. Its member organisations provide TCP/IP or OSI data internetwork services to the general public. (CIX (Commercial Internet Exchange Association, Herndon, VA, www.cix.org) Pronounced "kicks," it was a membership organization that promoted the development of a level playing field for ISPs. ) for the purpose of interconnecting these backbones and exchanging their end user's traffic. At this time, four initial public network access points (NAPs) replaced the NSF backbone. Townsend (2001b) provided an overview of the geographic geographic /geo·graph·ic/ (je?o-graf´ik) in pathology, of or referring to a pattern that is well demarcated, resembling outlines on a map. geographic pertaining to geography. spread of national backbone networks A backbone network provides a path for the exchange of information between different LANs or subnetworks.[1] A backbone can tie together diverse networks in the same building, in different buildings in a campus environment, or over wide areas. during 1969-1999. After the advent of CIX and NAPs, commercial backbones developed a system of interconnection through peering. The IBP peering has been one of the most popular ways of improving service and operation. Peering can be defined as an agreement between IBPs to carry traffic for each other and for their respective customers. It also refers to a relationship between IBPs. Peering is the interconnection mutual business arrangement between at least two IBPs. Peering relationships are sought primarily in two reasons. First, it reduces cost and reliance on purchased Internet bandwidth. Second, it lowers inter-AS traffic latency (1) The time between initiating a request in the computer and receiving the answer. Data latency may refer to the time between a query and the results arriving at the screen or the time between initiating a transaction that modifies one or more databases and its completion. . Peering can be classified into private and public peering according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. its openness. For the public peering, anyone who is a member can exchange traffic based on equal cost sharing while private peering is a direct interconnection between two IBPs as a form of bilateral bilateral /bi·lat·er·al/ (-lat´er-al) having two sides, or pertaining to both sides. bi·lat·er·al adj. 1. Having or formed of two sides; two-sided. 2. private peering. The Internet traffic Internet traffic is the flow of data around the Internet. It includes web traffic, which is the amount of that data that is related to the World Wide Web, along with the traffic from other major uses of the Internet, such as electronic mail and peer-to-peer networks. growth led to the congestion The condition of a network when there is not enough bandwidth to support the current traffic load. congestion - When the offered load of a data communication path exceeds the capacity. in the public peering points (such as NAPs). To reduce the congestion, the private peering is introduced. According to Kende The kende (or kündü) was one of the kings of the dual-monarchy of the early Magyars, along with the gyula or war-chief. At the time of the Magyar migration to Pannonia, the Kende was named Kurszán. (2000) reports, about 80% of Internet traffic is exchanged throughout private peering. This tells us how critical to understand the private peering in considering Internet interconnection. However, there is little research addressing this private peering information into the analysis of studies. In this study, we like to address this issue. Previous research assumed only the public peering. In other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke" put differently , every IBP can exchange its Internet traffic via common points if they have a common point among IBPs. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 the background of Internet accessibility and coverage study with previous research is described. Section 3 provides various models to analyze an·a·lyze v. 1. To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations. 2. To separate a chemical substance into its constituent elements to determine their nature or proportions. 3. Internet accessibility and coverage with peering information. Empirical em·pir·i·cal adj. 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. 3. results from the models are shown in Section 4. Section 5 concludes the paper. 2. BACKGROUND Little research has been conducted on the detail subnetwork See subnet. of interconnection points. Accessibility and coverage measurement can be different if subnetwork structure is included in the analysis. Internet communication is transported through fiber optic optic /op·tic/ (op´tik) ocular (1). op·tic or op·ti·cal adj. 1. Of or relating to the eye or vision. 2. networks. The geography geography, the science of place, i.e., the study of the surface of the earth, the location and distribution of its physical and cultural features, the areal patterns or places that they form, and the interrelation of these features as they affect humans. and topology topology, branch of mathematics, formerly known as analysis situs, that studies patterns of geometric figures involving position and relative position without regard to size. of these backbone networks are studied widely. Internet consists of a large number of interconnected backbones topologically to·pol·o·gy n. pl. to·pol·o·gies 1. Topographic study of a given place, especially the history of a region as indicated by its topography. 2. . Several backbone providers exchange traffic and routing information at specific exchanging points. However, how Internet backbone network is connected at certain cities with the peering information has not been addressed. Moreover, network survivability and reliability can be better understood with peering subnetwork information. 1.1 Peering The current Internet is supported by a large number of IBPs. However, no single IBP owns a network that connects all points of the global Internet. Therefore, all IBPs must be interconnected in network exchanging points to provide Internet service. It is common for an IP packet in its paths from origin to destination over the Internet to traverse traverse - traversal multiple IBPs. It is therefore necessary for IBPs to cooperate in the provision of Internet connectivity A generic term for connecting devices to each other in order to transfer data back and forth. It often refers to network connections, which embraces bridges, routers, switches and gateways as well as backbone networks. services. Peering is an interconnection business arrangement whereby each IBP directly exchanges traffic to and from each others' customers. IBPs range in size from small (regional) to large (national). The criteria criteria (krītēr´ē  ),n. for the peering agreement are outside of this research. This research focuses on interconnection structure in network exchanging points between Internet Backbone Providers (IBPs). For the interconnection of any two IBPs, there is a tradeoff between the use of more connections and the use of faster connections to achieve higher bandwidth. For example, if two IBPs interconnect (1) To attach one device to another. (2) A physical port (plug, socket) or wireless port (transmitter, receiver) used to attach one device to another. only on east side, then traffic originating at one IBP on the west side would have to traverse each service provider's network in order to reach the interconnection point. Such a detour results in a lower quality of services. Thus, it is useful for ISPs to interconnect at multiple points. Such delays can often be avoided when IBPs agree upon an additional interconnection between their networks so that traffic between them does not have to be routed through the Internet cloud cloud, aggregation of minute particles of water or ice suspended in the air. Formation of Clouds Clouds are formed when air containing water vapor is cooled below a critical temperature called the dew point and the resulting moisture condenses into . On the other hand, many public interconnection points (NAPs) are handling huge data exchange so that latency is evident. The NAPs have become the bottleneck A lessening of throughput. It often refers to networks that are overloaded, which is caused by the inability of the hardware and transmission lines to support the traffic. It can also refer to a mismatch inside the computer where slower-speed peripheral buses and devices prevent the CPU of the Internet. Such a latency of lower quality of services can be avoided by the direct connection. Thus, it is an advantage for ISPs to interconnect directly each other in exchanging points. 1.2 Public vs. Private Interconnection Public interconnection points such as NAPs allow multiple IBPs to interconnect at exchanging points. This allows an IBP to obtain connectivity with multiple IBPs. With public peering, any node node, in astronomy, point at which the orbit of a body crosses a reference plane. One reference plane that is often used is the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun (ecliptic). in one backbone network could be connected to the backbone through and through; thoroughly; entirely. - Lord Lytton. See also: Backbone network if two IBPs share the node in an exchanging point. It is an efficient means of interconnection when two IBPs have a relatively low amount of traffic to exchange. Often times, however, it is necessary for IBPs to have the direct interconnection of private peering due to the high traffic to exchange. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between the traffic volume and interconnection type. For example, if IBP A and B have a high volume of traffic to exchange, they prefer private peering of point-to-point Refers to a communications line that provides a path from one location to another (point A to point B). Contrast with multipoint. connection to public peering of hub connection. Currently there are 11 major interconnection points: four official NAPs, four MAEs, two FIXs, and one CIX (see Boardwatch Boardwatch began as an important publication for the online Bulletin Board Systems of the 1980s and 1990s and ultimately evolved into the primary trade magazine of the ISP industry in the late 1990s. , 2001 for detail sites). Any IBP that has a peer connection at one of these points has some connectivity to the Internet. As can be seen in Figure 1, the IBPs A, B, and C can peer in NAP (1) See network access protection. (2) (Network Access Point) The first public Internet exchange points (IXPs). Established by the National Science Foundation in the early 1990s, they were set up to provide a standard way to exchange packets for (exchanging point) under the public peering agreement. In addition to the public peering, the IBPs A, and B are under the private peering agreement where they bypass In communications, to avoid the local telephone company by using satellites and microwave systems. NAP to exchange data. Thus, the IBP A and the IBP B only use the NAP when they exchange the traffic with the IBP C to avoid the delay of the NAP. Assuming that the NAP is under construction as can be seen in Figure 2, the IBPs cannot peer publicly each other. In this case, the IBP A and C can exchange data under private peering, so can IBP B and C. However, the IBP A and B are not able to exchange data any more because the IBP C will not accept traffic from A destined des·tine tr.v. des·tined, des·tin·ing, des·tines 1. To determine beforehand; preordain: a foolish scheme destined to fail; a film destined to become a classic. 2. for B or vice versa VICE VERSA. On the contrary; on opposite sides. . [FIGURES 1-2 OMITTED] 1.3 Literature Review A number of studies have shown that the development of the Internet has concentrated within urban agglomerations. O'Kelly O'Kel·ly , Seán Thomas 1883-1966. Irish political leader. A founder of Sinn Fein, he later served as president of Ireland (1945-1959). and Grubesic (2002) used a traditional methodology to examine the city accessibility focusing on the topological to·pol·o·gy n. pl. to·pol·o·gies 1. Topographic study of a given place, especially the history of a region as indicated by its topography. 2. structure of the U.S. commercial Internet. However, this study did not include detail information of peering relationship of the commercial Internet industry. One of their assumptions is that IBPs can interconnect their own network to extend their network coverage if IBPs share the common exchanging node. Wheeler and O'Kelly (1999) studied the accessibility of cities to the commercial Internet suggesting that the most accessible cities are located at major network-access points. They also showed that accessibility of cities has a hierarchy hierarchy: see ministry and orders, holy. A structure that has a predetermined ordering from high to low. For example, all files and folders on the hard disk are organized in a hierarchy (see Win Folder organization). structure. The role of cities as hubs hubs - hub for Internet backbone networks has been studied. Moss and Townsend (2000) found that many metropolitan areas serve hubs for interurban in·ter·ur·ban adj. Relating to or connecting urban areas: an interurban railroad. backbone networks as of 1997. Gorman Gorman may refer to: People with the surname Gorman
2. NOTATION notation: see arithmetic and musical notation. How a system of numbers, phrases, words or quantities is written or expressed. Positional notation is the location and value of digits in a numbering system, such as the decimal or binary system. & MODEL DESCRIPTION We introduced [X.sub.ik], [Y.sub.ijk] and [Z.sub.pqm] variables to analyze the accessibility [3.2] of backbone node and the coverage [3.3] by Internet backbone provider with peering information between backbone providers. [X.sub.ik [for all] i [member of] N, k [member of] BP (1) [Y.sub.ijk] [for all] (i, j) [member of] E, k [member of] BP (2) [Z.sub.pqm] [for all] p,q [subset A group of commands or functions that do not include all the capabilities of the original specification. Software or hardware components designed for the subset will also work with the original. or equal to] BP, m [member of] PP (3) [X.sub.ik] = {if node i of Internet backbone provider k, 0 otherwise. [Y.sub.ijk]= {if the undirected link (i, j)of Internet backbone provider k, 0 otherwise. [Z.sub.pqm] = {1 if p, q Internet backbone providers peer privately each other at peering node m, 0 otherwise. N: backbone nodes in the network. E: a set of backbone links in the network. BP: Internet backbone providers in the network. PP: peering points in the network, subset of N. i, j: a node of Internet backbone providers in the network, subset of N. k: Internet backbone provider in the network, subset of BP. m: a peering point in the network, subset of PP. p, q: Internet backbone provider, subset of BP. For example, X (1), Y (2), and Z (3) variables in Figure 3 can be represented as follows: X variables list as X_1_A = 1, X_2_A = 1, X_3_A = 1, X_3_B = 1, X_4_B = 1, X 5 B = 1, X_6_B = 1, X_5_C = 1, X_7_C = 1, X_8_C = 1, and X_9_C = 1. Y variables list as Y_1_2_A = 1, Y_2_3_A = 1, Y_3_4_B = 1, Y_4_6_B = 1, Y_3_5_B = 1, Y_5_7_C = 1, Y_5_8_C = 1, and Y_5_9_C = 1. Z variables list as Z_A_B_3 = 1, and Z_B_C_5 = 1. As can been seen in Figure 3, there are 9 backbone nodes, 8 backbone links, and 2 peering points in the network. IBP A includes nodes 1, 2, and 3 where node 3 is the peering point. IBP B consists of nodes 3, 4, 5, and 6 where nodes 3 and 5 are the peering points. IBP C contains nodes 5, 7, 8, and 9, where node 5 is the peering point. In other words, IBP A and B peer each other in node 3, and IBP B and C do in node 5. 2.1 Model Assumptions The analysis of accessibility and coverage is based on a number of assumptions. First, there is no capacity on backbone links. Second, the IBP can interconnect only in network exchanging points privately. In other words, an interconnection between IBPs throughout the private peering is done at exchange points rather than at linkages between the points. This is a critical assumption in analyzing the accessibility and the coverage. As illustrated in Figure 1, the interconnection by the private peering between IBP A and B is bypassing In communications and linguistics, bypassing refers to the misunderstanding which develops when the recipient of a message infers a different meaning from the message than that intended by the source. the exchanging point. If we only consider the direct connection between two points, we omit o·mit tr.v. o·mit·ted, o·mit·ting, o·mits 1. To fail to include or mention; leave out: omit a word. 2. a. To pass over; neglect. b. the exchanging point in the model. Thus, the private peering connection is actually the three-point connection where the intermediate point is shared by both IBPs. Third, the peering is only considered as a means of interconnection. Last, there is no conflict to agree on the peering arrangement with respect to the network size. 2.2 Accessibility Measurement Understanding the benefits of connectivity as a measurement of accessibility is useful because there are very strong network externalities A situation in which the price somebody is willing to pay to gain access to a network is based solely on the number of other people who are currently using it. Fax machines and Internet e-mail are prime examples. The more people who use the services, the more others are willing to use it. . Network externalities exist when the value for a customer of belonging to a network increases with the number of customers in the network (Cremer, 2000). Accessibility measurement can also be redefined in Internet networks where the physical distance separation affects little because Internet data travel at the speed of light over fiber optic networks. In standard connectivity notation, the places j we can reach in two steps from i are found from going over all the possible intermediate [h.sup.th] nodes between i and j. We can extend this idea of a single network to the multiple networks if h is shared with the multiple networks. For example, [C.sup.2.sub.ijk] = [summation summation n. the final argument of an attorney at the close of a trial in which he/she attempts to convince the judge and/or jury of the virtues of the client's case. (See: closing argument) over (h)] [C.sup.1.sub.ihk] [C.sup.1.sub.hjk] with h representing the intermediate nodes over which the linkage linkage In mechanical engineering, a system of solid, usually metallic, links (bars) connected to two or more other links by pin joints (hinges), sliding joints, or ball-and-socket joints to form a closed chain or a series of closed chains. is made (See Taafee et al. (1996) for more details). Equation (4) specifies the accessibility of each IBP without peering. Connectivity matrix is directly made from Y variables in Equation (2). Equation (5) states that the accessibility of IBP with peering. The accessibility of IBP can be modeled as follows: [summation over (n)] [C.sup.n.sub.ijk [for all] i, j (4) [summation over (n)] [([C.sub.ijp] + [C.sub.ijq]).sup.n] [for all] i, j, p, q (5) [C.sub.ijk] = {1 if the undirected link (i,j) of Internet backbone provider k, 0 otherwise. n: diameter diameter - The diameter of a graph is the maximum value of the minimum distance between any two nodes. of the network. Accessibility measurement is related to the peering structure. As can be seen in Table 2, the cities of IBP B have been improved when the private peering is introduced. For example, the node 6 of IBP B changes dramatically although node 1 of IBP A and node 6 of IBP B have a same network structure position. However, the nodes of IBP B take an advantage with multiple peering partners. IBP A peers only with IBP B in node 3 whereas IBP B peers with both IBP A and IBP C. This claim is supported by the accessibility measurement under private peering agreement. 2.3 Coverage Measurement Network coverage measurement is important for the IBP. To provide the full coverage service, each IBP needs to find an appropriate peering partner. Many factors affect the coverage including the peering locations, and peering partners. As is shown in Figure 3, the IBP A covers nodes 1, 2, and 3 without peering. Once the IBP A peers with IBP B at node 3, IBP A extends its coverage into 4, 5, and 6 nodes through the peering point 3. Equation (6) specifies the coverage by IBP without peering. Equation (7) states that the coverage by IBP with peering. The term of [summation over (m)] [Z.sub.pqm] in equation (7) is equivalent to {# of peering point by p, q}. The coverage of IBP can be modeled as follows: [summation over (i)] [X.sub.ik] [for all] k (6) {[summation over (i)] [X.sub.ip] + [summation over (i)] [X.sub.iq]}-[summation over (m)] [Z.sub.pqm] [for all] p, q (7) From the perspective of IBP B, IBP B increases its network coverage into 6 with IBP A, and widens the coverage into 7 with IBP C. To provide the full coverage to the entire network, IBP B needs to peer with both IBP A and IBP C as can be seen in Table 3. IBP A and IBP C cannot provide the full coverage without IBP B. 3. EMPIRICAL RESULTS 3.1 Data Obtaining private peering information is difficult. Particularly, peering subnetwork information must rely on private sources of data. Most IBPs provide presence of points of backbone network and backbone linkages. Their peering relationships with other IBPs are not open to the public but limited to themselves. The primary data source for this paper is from Internet source as of year 2000. We considered 5 major IBPs to illustrate our analysis, which are still in the market as can be seen in Table 4. Table 4 shows that SAVVIS SAVVIS, Inc. (NASDAQ: SVVS; formerly SAVVIS Communications Corporation) provides technology infrastructure for enterprise applications. SAVVIS delivers "IT infrastructure as a service" by combining virtualization technology, a global network and 24 data centers in the serves the largest number of cities without the peering partner. This study uses information that provides both public and private peering information of IBPs. We assume that every IBP can exchange data in backbone nodes under the public peering agreement whereas only peering partner can exchange data under the private peering agreement in exchanging points. Table 5 shows IBP and its data exchanging points. This is also used to construct peering relationships among IBPs at exchanging points. There are 6 metropolitan data transfer facilities. Either public or private data exchange is feasible (algorithm) feasible - A description of an algorithm that takes polynomial time (that is, for a problem set of size N, the resources required to solve the problem can be expressed as some polynomial involving N). in these cities. Depending on the IBP, the number of exchanging points is different. For example, FNS FNS Food and Nutrition Service (USDA) FNS Fonds National Suisse (French: Swiss National Science Foundation) FNS Federated Naming Service FNS Friedrich Naumann Stiftung and IDT IDT Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA, USA) IDT I Don't Think IDT Identity Theft IDT Interrupt Descriptor Table IDT Integrated DNA Technologies IDT Inactive Duty Training IDT Instructional Design & Technology have three interconnection locations across the country while SAVVIS has all locations available. To illustrate how the subnetwork of peering information affects the accessibility and the coverage, we made a private peering table (Table 6) as a first scenario A scenario (from Italian, that which is pinned to the scenery) is a synthetic description of an event or series of actions and events. In the Commedia dell'arte . We assume that similar sizes of IBP are willing to peer each other (See Table 4 for the size of IBP). For example, ICG ICG indocyanine green. has a private peering with SERVINT. In other words, both IBPs can exchange data each other directly in addition to the public exchange points. For the purpose of the analysis, we assume that SAVVIS has no private peering partner. Figures 4-9 illustrate each IBP network layout
Layout may refer to:
tr.v. de·pict·ed, de·pict·ing, de·picts 1. To represent in a picture or sculpture. 2. To represent in words; describe. See Synonyms at represent. the number of backbone cities included in this analysis and show the primary Internet exchanging points in the United States United States, officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. . [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] FNS serves 11 different backbone locations as of year 2000. As can be seen in Figure 4, FNS Internet backbone provider has 3 interchanging points. FNS has a private peering agreement with IDT Internet backbone provider (See Table 6). According to Tables 5 and 6, we know that Chicago Chicago, city, United States Chicago (shĭkä`gō, shĭkô`gō), city (1990 pop. 2,783,726), seat of Cook co., NE Ill., on Lake Michigan; inc. 1837. is the only location for FNS to privately peer with IDT in addition to public peering. [FIGURES 4-8 OMITTED] As can be seen in Figure 5, ICG serves 23 different backbone locations. ICG Internet backbone provider has 4 interchanging points. We assumed that ICG has a private peering agreement with SERVINT Internet backbone provider (See Table 6). Combining Table 5 and 6 together tells us that ICG can peer privately with SERVINT in following locations: Atlanta Atlanta (ətlăn`tə, ăt–), city (1990 pop. 394,017), state capital and seat of Fulton co., NW Ga., on the Chattahoochee R. and Peachtree Creek, near the Appalachian foothills; inc. 1847. , Chicago, Dallas Dallas, city (1990 pop. 1,006,877), seat of Dallas co., N Tex., on the Trinity River near the junction of its three forks; inc. 1871. The second largest Texas city, after Houston, and the eighth largest U.S. , and New York New York, state, United States New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of . It is noteworthy that in the ICG network layout, Chicago is not densely dense adj. dens·er, dens·est 1. a. Having relatively high density. b. Crowded closely together; compact: a dense population. 2. connected with other cities. Figure 6 shows that IDT serves 15 different backbone locations. IDT Internet backbone provider has 3 interchanging points: Atlanta, Chicago, and New York. Out of these 3 possible interchanging locations, IDT can only peer with FNS in Chicago because Chicago is the only their common location. SAVVIS serves 28 different backbone locations shown in Figure 7. Out of 5 IBPs SAVVIS is the mostly connected by itself in terms of node coverage and backbone connection. SAVVIS Internet backbone provider has all 6 interchanging points. In other words, SAVVIS can peer privately with any other IBPs in any location. However, we assumed that SAVVIS has no private peering partner. Figure 8 illustrates that Servint has 22 different backbone locations. Servint Internet backbone provider has 5 interchanging points except San Francisco San Francisco (săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden (See Table 5). Servint has a private peering agreement with ICG Internet backbone provider (See Table 6). Thus, Servint can peer privately with ICG in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and New York. 3.2 Scenario of Private Peering (Table 6) From the network of FNS itself without any peering partner, Columbus Columbus. 1 City (1990 pop. 178,681), seat of Muscogee co., W Ga., at the head of navigation on the Chattahoochee River; settled and inc. 1828 on the site of a Creek village. is the top accessible city while Sacramento Sacramento, city, United States Sacramento (săkrəmĕn`tō), city (1990 pop. 369,365), state capital and seat of Sacramento co., central Calif. is the least accessible city as can be seen in Table 7. This result has been expected because Columbus is centrally connected to other cities as can been seen in Figure 4, although it is not an exchanging location. Table 8 shows that the most accessible city is the Chicago with respect to the total accessibility without peering. Chicago is also an exchanging location for the peering as can be seen in Figure 6. Once the private peering subnetwork (Table 6) is included in the analysis of the accessibility, Cleveland Cleveland, former county, England Cleveland, former county, NE England, created under the Local Government Act of 1972 (effective 1974). It was composed of the county boroughs of Hartlepool and Teeside and parts of the former counties of Durham and turns into the most accessible city on top of Columbus and Chicago. It is an interesting result because Cleveland is not an exchanging point. Chicago as an exchanging node does not always take an advantage when we include the peering subnetwork. Table 10 shows the results of ICG network with respect to the total accessibility without peering. Dallas is not only the most accessible city but also the exchanging location as can be seen in Figure 5. Although FNS IBP peering with IDT extends its network coverage from 11 into 23 cities, FNS still needs to peer with other IBPs to provide the full coverage of network service (44 cities). As can be seen in Table 14, FNS maximizes its location coverage with SAVVIS for one peering partner. Table 14 shows that how much FNS can increase its coverage with different peering partners. For example, if FNS decides to peer with two other IBPs, the peering with ICG and SAVVIS becomes the best strategy in extending its coverage. We define a superior set as the best strategy for the same number of peering. An inferior INFERIOR. One who in relation to another has less power and is below him; one who is bound to obey another. He who makes the law is the superior; he who is bound to obey it, the inferior. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 8. set is defined if the large number of peering cover less than or equal to the smaller number of peering. Table 14 also shows that there is an inferior set to peer from FNS point of view. The coverage (86%) of peering with IDT, SAVVIS, and SERVINT is less than the coverage (91%) of peering with ICG and SAVVIS. Thus, FNS would peer with ICG, IDT, and SAVVIS if they have to peer with 3 other IBPs where ICG covers 23 cities (52%) without peering. Table 15 shows there are two inferior sets. For example, the coverage of both ICG peering with FNS and IDT (77%) and with IDT and SERVINT (80%) is less than that of a peering with SAVVIS (84%) alone. ICG also need to peer with all other IBPs to provide the complete coverage. IDT covers 15 cities (34%) without peering. Unlike the other IBPs, there is no inferior set. In other words, the coverage is proportionally pro·por·tion·al adj. 1. Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion. 2. Properly related in size, degree, or other measurable characteristics; corresponding: increased by the number of the peering partners. To provide the complete coverage, IDT needs to peer with FNS, SAWIS SAWIS Small Arms Weapons Instructor School (USMC) , and SERVINT without ICG. Table 14 also shows that there is an inferior set to peer from FNS point of view. The coverage (86%) of peering with IDT, SAVVIS, and SERVINT is less than the coverage (91%) of peering with ICG and SAVVIS. Thus, FNS would peer with ICG, IDT, and SAVVIS if they have to peer with 3 other IBPs where ICG covers 23 cities (52%) without peering. Table 15 shows there are two inferior sets. For example, the coverage of both ICG peering with FNS and IDT (77%) and with IDT and SERVINT (80%) is less than that of a peering with SAWIS (84%) alone. ICG also need to peer with all other IBPs to provide the complete coverage. IDT covers 15 cities (34%) without peering. Unlike the other IBPs, there is no inferior set. In other words, the coverage is proportionally increased by the number of the peering partners. To provide the complete coverage, IDT needs to peer with FNS, SAVVIS, and SERVINT without ICG. SAVVIS serves 28 different backbone locations (64%) out of 44. To fully provide the coverage (100%), it needs to peer with all others (FNS+ICG+IDT+SERVINT). In these particular dataset See data set. , SAVVIS extends its location coverage into as much as 84% with ICG. With two peering partners it increases its coverage up to a maximum of 91% with a set of either FNS and ICG, or ICG and SERVINT. Peering with FNS, ICG and SERVINT together, SAVVIS expands its coverage up to 98%. There are interesting results from the peering. For example, peering with IDT and S ERVINT turns out the inferior peering set in terms of coverage. SAVVIS only covers its service 77% with IDT and SERVINT, which is much lower than the single peering with ICG (84%) alone. Therefore, SAVVIS would not peer with IDT and SERVINT if they need to peer with two partners. The similar inferior set is also found in peering with FNS and IDT (80%). If SAVVIS need to peer with three other partners, the best strategy with respect to coverage percentage is the set of FNS, ICG, and SERVINT. Moreover, the set of inferior with FNS, IDT, and SERVINT is not feasible to peer with. SERVINT serves 22 different backbone locations (50%) out of 44. To fully provide the coverage (100%), it needs to peer with FNS, IDT, and SAVVIS as can be seen in Table 18. With one peering, SERVINT extends its location coverage into as much as 75%. With two peering partners it increases its coverage up to a maximum of 91%. There is no particular inferior set. 3.3 Scenario of Multiple Private Peering (Table 19) Dealing with private peering with a single partner is relatively simple. However, the model needs an elaborate elaborate to produce complex substances out of simpler materials. way to control the stream of flow. Table 20 illustrates the detail information about how the data can flow along the network among IBPs. Each IBP can interconnect its own network at exchanging points. The number of 1's cell between IBPs in a binary matrix In mathematics, particularly matrix theory, a binary matrix or (0,1)-matrix is a matrix in which each entry is either zero or one. For example:
v. mod·i·fied, mod·i·fy·ing, mod·i·fies v.tr. 1. To change in form or character; alter. 2. Table 6 into Table 19 for the multiple private peering. The basic routing policy is as in Figure 2 and Table 21. 4. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION This study presents a recent study of accessibility and coverage using peering information across the Internet. The results support that the detailed information of peering matrix among Internet backbone providers affect the traditional measurement of accessibility of city and network coverage. Empirical results also show the clear relationship between the accessibility and the degree of node. The exchanging points obviously take advantages in terms of accessibility. However, there is a critical issue to be noted in accessibility study. The exchanging node does not always take an advantage when we include the peering subnetwork. Due to the large number of IBPs, it is not feasible for every IBP to interconnect with every other IBP. IBPs may have different peering models due to geographic network coverage or customer base. Hierarchical A structure made up of different levels like a company organization chart. The higher levels have control or precedence over the lower levels. Hierarchical structures are a one-to-many relationship; each item having one or more items below it. peering model is necessary to deal with different size of IBPs. It will be interesting to see how transit affects the analysis as a means of interconnection. Many IBPs are out of market over time, which makes the consideration of new IBPs in an analysis inevitable. Some of them are transformed through merge See mail merge and concatenate. and acquisition. The current telecommunication telecommunication Communication between parties at a distance from one another. Modern telecommunication systems—capable of transmitting telephone, fax, data, radio, or television signals—can transmit large volumes of information over long distances. market is volatile With regard to computer memory, it means "temporary" and not "highly changeable," which is the usual meaning of the word. See volatile memory. 1. (programming) volatile - volatile variable. 2. (storage) volatile - See non-volatile storage. . Out of 36 IBPs in year 2001, only 19 IBPs stay in the market without any change. Twelve IBPs exist no longer in the market whereas only 6 new IBPs are newly emerged in the market. It also suggests that issues of network survivability and reliability be addressed with respect to peering relationship. The model using peering subnetwork can be used when IBPs need to make a decision to extend their network service. REFERENCES: Baake, P. and T. Wichmann, On the Economics of Internet Peering, 1998 Badasyan, N. and S. Chakrabarti, Private Peering Among Internet Backbone Providers, 2003, 1-37 Boardwatch, Boardwatch Magazine's Directory of Internet Service Providers, 13 (Spring), 2001 Cremer, J., P. Rey, et al., "Connectivity in the commercial internet", The Journal of Industrial Economics 48(4), 2000, 433-472 Gorman, S. P. and E. J. Malecki, "The networks of the Internet: an analysis of provider networks in the USA", Telecommunications Communicating information, including data, text, pictures, voice and video over long distance. See communications. Policy, 24, 2000, 113-134 Grubesic, T. H., M. E. O'Kelly, et al., "A geographic perspective on commercial Internet survivability", Telematics and Informatics Same as information technology and information systems. The term is more widely used in Europe. , 20, 2003, 51-69 Kende, M., The Digital Handshake handshake - handshaking : Connecting. Internet Backbones A group of communications networks managed by several commercial companies that provide the major high-speed links across the country. ISPs are either connected directly to these backbones or to a larger regional ISP that is connected to one. , 2000 Moss, M. L. and A. M. Townsend, "The Internet Backbone and the American American, river, 30 mi (48 km) long, rising in N central Calif. in the Sierra Nevada and flowing SW into the Sacramento River at Sacramento. The discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill (see Sutter, John Augustus) along the river in 1848 led to the California gold rush of Metropolis." The Information Society, 16, 2002, 35-47 O'Kelly, M. E. and T. H. Grubesic, "Backbone topology, access, and the commercial Internet, 1997-2000", Environment and Planning The Environment and Planning journals are four influential academic journals. They are described as as 'interdisciplinary', though they have a highly spatial focus, meaning that they are often of most interest to human geographers. . B: Planning and Design, 29, 2002, 533-552 Taaffe Taaffe can refer to:
The better known persons are:
In 1913, law professor Dr. , New Jersey, 1996. Townsend, A. M., "Network Cities and the Global Structure of the Internet", American Behavioral behavioral pertaining to behavior. behavioral disorders see vice. behavioral seizure see psychomotor seizure. Scientist, 44(10), 2001, 1697-1716 Townsend, A. M., "The Internet and the rise of the new network cities, 1969-1999", Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 2001, 39-58 Changjoo Kim Kim orphan wanders streets of India with lama. [Br. Lit.: Kim] See : Adventurousness , Minnesota State University, Mankato Minnesota State University, Mankato is a four-year university located in Mankato, Minnesota. The school has an enrollment of nearly 14,000 students and 600 full-time faculty members. MSU is part of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (MnSCU). , Minnesota Minnesota, state, United States Minnesota (mĭn'ĭsō`tə), upper midwestern state of the United States. It is bordered by Lake Superior and Wisconsin (E), Iowa (S), South Dakota and North Dakota (W), and the Canadian provinces , USA Namyong Lee, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota, USA Sung Kim, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota, USA Dooyoung Shin shin (shin) the prominent anterior edge of the tibia or the leg. saber shin marked anterior convexity of the tibia, seen in congenital syphilis and in yaws. , Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota, USA Dr. Changjoo Kim earned his Ph. D. at The Ohio State University Ohio State University, main campus at Columbus; land-grant and state supported; coeducational; chartered 1870, opened 1873 as Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, renamed 1878. There are also campuses at Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Newark. , Columbus in 2004. He is currently an assistant professor of Geography Department at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Dr. Namyong Lee earned his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota (body, education) University of Minnesota - The home of Gopher. http://umn.edu/. Address: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. , Minneapolis Minneapolis (mĭn'ēăp`əlĭs), city (1990 pop. 368,383), seat of Hennepin co., E Minn., at the head of navigation on the Mississippi River, at St. Anthony Falls; inc. 1856. in 1998. He is currently an associate professor of Mathematics and Statistics department at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Dr. Sung Kim earned his Ph. D. at the University of Nebraska Nebraska (nəbrăs`kə), Great Plains state of the central United States. It is bordered by Iowa and Missouri, across the Missouri R. (E), Kansas (S), Colorado (SW), Wyoming (NW), and South Dakota (N). , Lincoln Lincoln, city and district, England Lincoln, city (1991 pop. 79,980) and district, Lincolnshire, E England, in the Parts of Kesteven, on the Witham River. in 1995. He is currently an associate professor of management information science at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Dr. Dooyoung Shin earned his Ph.D. at the University of Iowa Not to be confused with Iowa State University. The first faculty offered instruction at the University in March 1855 to students in the Old Mechanics Building, situated where Seashore Hall is now. In September 1855, the student body numbered 124, of which, 41 were women. , Iowa City Iowa City, city (1990 pop. 59,738), seat of Johnson co., E Iowa, on both sides of the Iowa River; founded 1839 as the capital of Iowa Territory, inc. 1853. Among its manufactures are foam rubber, animal feed, paper, and food products. The city is the seat of the Univ. in 1987. He is currently a professor of production and operations management Operations management is an area of business that is concerned with the production of goods and services, and involves the responsibility of ensuring that business operations are efficient and effective. at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
TABLE 1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VOLUME
OF TRAFFIC AND THE NETWORK CONNECTION
STRUCTURE
IBP/
Traffic High Low
A-B Private Public
Peering Peering
Network Point-to-point Hub
type connection connection
TABLE 2. CITIES ACCESSIBILITY
WITH PEERING INFORMATION
Public Peering
City T Rank
1 17 8
2 34 3
3 65 1
4 34 3
5 62 2
6 17 8
7 31 5
8 31 5
9 31 5
Private Peering
City T Rank
1 14 9
2 28 4
3 80 1
4 52 3
5 70 2
6 28 4
7 28 4
8 28 4
9 28 4
TABLE 3 NETWORK COVERAGE WITH PEERING INFORMATION
A+B X
coverage 6
B+C X
coverage 7
A+B+C X
coverage 9
TABLE 4. SERVICE
COVERAGE BY IBP
Internet # of
Backbone Coverage
Provider
FNS 11
ICG 23
IDT 15
SAWS 28
SERVINT 22
TABLE 5. INTERNET BACKBONE PROVIDERS
AND NETWORK EXCHANGING POINTS
BACKBONE Atlanta Chicago Dallas
FNS 0 1 0
ICG 1 1 1
IDT 1 1 0
SAWS 1 1 1
SERVINT 1 1 1
Sum 4 5 3
San
BACKBONE New York Philadelphia Francisco
FNS 0 1 1
ICG 1 0 0
IDT 1 0 0
SAWS 1 1 1
SERVINT 1 1 0
Sum 4 3 2
TABLE 6 PRIVATE PEERING MATRIX AMONG IBPS
IBP FNS ICG IDT SAWS SERVINT
FNS 0 0 1 0 0
ICG 0 0 0 0 1
IDT 1 0 0 0 0
SAWS 0 0 0 0 0
SERVINT 0 1 0 0 0
TABLE 7. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF ICG
WITHOUT PEERING
ICG
City T = [C.sup.^7] Rank
Dallas 1
Denver 31438 2
San Jose 30559 3
San Diego 27424 4
Chicago 17833 5
Austin 16833 6
Sacramento 16786 7
Seattle 15433 8
Washington 14607 9
Newark 13406 10
Cleveland 9460 11
Houston 8839 12
Miami 8682 13
New York 7508 14
San Antonio 5401 15
Boston 3891 16
Corpus Christi 3683 17
Atlanta 3026 18
Cincinnati 2709 19
Louisville 1363 20
Charlotte 1170 21
Birmingham 773 22
Nashville 397 23
TABLE 8. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF FNS
AND IDT WITH PRIVATE
PEERING
FNS + IDT
City T = [C.sup.^6] Rank
Cleveland 19792 1
Columbus 19163 2
Chicago 18087 3
Cincinnati 14880 4
Akron 8592 5
Fort Wane 8592 6
Indianapolis 7454 7
New York 4932 8
Denver 4684 9
Dayton 4251 10
Philadelphia 4251 11
San Francisco 4251 12
Sacramento 3843 13
Richmond 3790 14
Phoenix 1726 15
Los Angeles 1641 16
Washington 1442 17
Hackensack 1432 18
Boston 1068 19
Atlanta 931 20
Houston 798 21
San Jose 407 22
Miami 223 23
TABLE 9. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF FNS
WITHOUT PEERING
FNS T = [C.sup.^4] Rank
Columbus 132 1
Cleveland 78 2
Chicago 54 3
Akron 49 4
Fort Wane 49 5
Cincinnati 42 6
Indianapolis 42 7
Dayton 28 8
Philadelphia 28 9
San Francisco 28 10
Sacramento 18 11
TABLE 10. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF IDT
WITHOUT PEERING
IDT
City T = [C.sup.^4] Rank
Chicago 6804 1
Cincinnati 6391 2
Cleveland 6252 3
Denver 6106 4
Phoenix 5177 5
Los Angeles 4741 6
Richmond 4579 7
Washington 3968 8
New York 3829 9
Houston 3404 10
Hackensack 2933 11
Atlanta 1935 12
San Jose 1727 13
Boston 1431 14
Miami 733 15
TABLE 11. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF
SAVVIS WITHOUT
PEERING
SAVVIS
City T=[C.sup.^6] Rank
New York 78164 1
St. Louis 77093 2
Dallas 63431 3
Atlanta 58084 4
Los Angeles 57201 5
Chicago 54644 6
San Francisco 53295 7
Seattle 41069 8
Miami 36611 9
Minneapolis 25759 10
Boston 22801 11
Kansas City 22349 12
Phoenix 20655 13
Denver 19125 14
Detroit 18378 15
Portland 16171 16
Newark 14182 17
Austin 12965 18
Houston 12222 19
Washington 11109 20
Fort Worth 10867 21
Indianapolis 10140 22
Philadelphia 4360 23
Pittsburgh 3154 24
Cincinnati 1950 25
Cleveland 1950 26
Baltimore 1921 27
Columbus 748 28
TABLE 12. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF ICG
DAND SERVINT WITH
PRIVATE PEERING
ICG + SERVINT
City T=[C.sup.^6] Rank
Dallas 104479 1
Denver 97538 2
San Jose 83785 3
Austin 69880 4
Houston 68862 5
Seattle 63668 6
Miami 61052 7
Chicago 56172 8
Atlanta 55610 9
San Diego 51725 10
St. Louis 50748 11
San Antonio 43314 12
McLean 31542 13
Detroit 27498 14
Minneapolis 25860 15
Washington 25191 16
Sacramento 23439 17
Newark 22210 18
Norfolk 19756 19
Los Angeles 18746 20
Corpus Christi 18482 21
Richmond 18329 22
Baltimore 14332 23
Cleveland 13965 24
Charlotte 9729 25
Birmingham 9295 26
Boston 9235 27
Kansas City 8402 28
New York 8090 29
Philadelphia 3033 30
Cincinnati 2866 31
Louisville 2241 32
Nashville 434 33
TABLE 13. TOTAL
ACCESSIBILITY OF
SERVINT WITHOUT
PEERING
SERVINT
City T=[C.sup.^7] Rank
St. Louis 19473 1
Atlanta 17258 2
Dallas 15946 3
Houston 15658 4
Miami 14587 5
Denver 13009 6
McLean 12539 7
Chicago 11079 8
Austin 10034 9
Richmond 9271 10
Detroit 7310 11
Los Angeles 7300 12
Seattle 7232 13
San Antonio 7007 14
Minneapolis 6640 15
Baltimore 6578 16
Norfolk 6068 17
San Jose 5645 18
Kansas City 5239 19
Boston 2365 20
Philadelphia 750 21
New York 244 22
TABLE 14. COVERAGE OF FNS WITH PEERING
Peering with FNS Coverage Set
ICG 68%
IDT 52%
SAMS 73% Superior
SERVINT 70%
ICG+IDT 77%
ICG+SAVVIS 91% Superior
ICG+SERVINT 89%
IDT+SAVVIS 80%
IDT+SERVINT 77%
AVVIS+SERVINT 84%
ICG+IDT+SAVVIS 95% Superior
ICG+IDT+SERVINT 93%
ICG+SAVVIS+SERVINT 98%
IDT+SAVVIS+SERVINT 86% Inferior
ICG+IDT+SAVVIS+SERVINT 100%
TABLE 15. COVERAGE OF ICG WITH PEERING
Peering with ICG Coverage Set
FNS 68%
IDT 61%
SAMS 84% Superior
SERVINT 75%
FNS+IDT 77% Inferior
FNS+SAVVIS 91% Superior
FNS+SERVINT 89%
IDT+SAVVIS 89%
IDT+SERVINT 80% Inferior
SAVVIS+SERVINT 91% Superior
FNS+IDT+SAVVIS 95%
FNS+IDT+SERVINT 93%
FNS+SAVVIS+SERVINT 98% Superior
IDT+SAVVIS+SERVINT 93%
FNS+IDT+SAVVIS+SERVINT 100%
TABLE 16. COVERAGE OF IDT WITH PEERING
Peering with IDT Coverage Set
FNS 52%
ICG 61
SAVVIS 70% Superior
SERVINT 61
FNS+ICG 77%
FNS+SAVVIS 80%
FNS+SERVINT 77%
ICG+SAVVIS 89% Superior
ICG+SERVINT 80%
SAVVIS+SERVINT 77%
FNS+ICG+SAVVIS 95%
FNS+ICG+SERVINT 93%
FNS+SAVVIS+SERVINT 100% Superior
ICG+SAVVIS+SERVINT 93%
FNS+ICG+SAVVIS+SERVINT 100%
TABLE 17. COVERAGE OF SAVVIS WITH PEERING
Peering with SAVVIS Coverage Set
FNS 73%
ICG 84% Superior
IDT 70%
SERVINT 75%
FNS+ICG 91% Superior
FNS+IDT 80% Inferior
FNS+SERVINT 84% Inferior
ICG+IDT 89%
ICG+SERVINT 91% Superior
IDT+SERVINT 77% Inferior
FNS+ICG+IDT 95%
FNS+ICG+SERVINT 98% Superior
FNS+IDT+SERVINT 86% Inferior
ICG+IDT+SERVINT 93%
FNS+ICG+IDT+SERVINT 100%
TABLE 18. COVERAGE OF SERVINT WITH PEERING
Peering, with Coverage Set
SERVINT
FNS 70%
ICG 75% Superior
IDT 61%
SAVVIS 75% Superior
FNS + ICG 89%
FNS + IDT 77%
FNS + SAVVIS 84%
ICG + IDT 80%
ICG + SAVVIS 91% Superior
IDT + SAVVIS 77%
FNS + ICG + IDT 98%
FNS + ICG + SAVVIS 93%
FNS + IDT + SAVVIS 100% Superior
ICG + IDT + SAVVIS 93%
FNS + ICG + IDT + SAVVIS 100%
TABLE 19. MULTIPLE PRIVATE PEERING MATRIX AMONG IBPS
IBP FNS ICG IDT SAWS SERVINT
FNS 0 0 1 1 0
ICG 0 0 0 1 1
IDT 1 0 0 1 0
SAWS 1 1 1 0 1
SERVINT 0 1 0 1 0
TABLE 20. PRIVATE PEERING MATRIX OF
EXCHANGING POINTS AMONG IBPS
IBP FNS
City CHI PHI SAN
FNS Chicago 0 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
IDT Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 0 0
New York 0 0 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
Philadelphia 1 1 1
San Francisco 1 1 1
SERVINT Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 1 0
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
Philadelphia 1 1 0
IBP ICG
City ATL CHI DAL NEW
FNS Chicago 0 1 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 0 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0 0
IDT Atlanta 1 1 0 1
Chicago 1 1 0 1
New York 1 1 0 1
SAVVIS Atlanta 1 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1 1
Dallas 1 1 1 1
New York 1 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 1 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1 1
Dallas 1 1 1 1
New York 1 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0
IBP IDT
City ATL CHI NEW
FNS Chicago 0 1 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 1 1 1
IDT Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0
IBP SAVVIS
City ATL CHI DAL NEW PHI SAN
FNS Chicago 0 1 0 0 1 1
Philadelphia 0 1 0 0 1 1
San Francisco 0 1 0 0 1 1
ICG Atlanta 1 1 1 1 0 0
Chicago 1 1 1 1 0 0
Dallas 1 1 1 1 0 0
New York 1 1 1 1 0 0
IDT Atlanta 1 1 0 1 0 0
Chicago 1 1 0 1 0 0
New York 1 1 0 1 0 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0 0 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 1 1 1 1 1 0
Chicago 1 1 1 1 1 0
Dallas 1 1 1 1 1 0
New York 1 1 1 1 1 0
Philadelphia 1 1 1 1 1 0
IBP SERVINT
City ATL CHI DAL NEW PHI
FNS Chicago 0 1 0 0 1
Philadelphia 0 1 0 0 1
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 1 1 1 1 0
Chicago 1 1 1 1 0
Dallas 1 1 1 1 0
New York 1 1 1 1 0
IDT Atlanta 1 1 0 1 0
Chicago 1 1 0 1 0
New York 1 1 0 1 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 1 1 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1 1 1
Dallas 1 1 1 1 1
New York 1 1 1 1 1
Philadelphia 1 1 1 1 1
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 0 0 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0 0
* ATL = Atlanta, CHI = Chicago, DAL = Dallas, NEW = New York,
PHI = Philadelphia, SAN = San Francisco.
TABLE 21. MULTIPLE PRIVATE PEERING MATRIX OF
EXCHANGING POINTS AMONG IBPS (TABLE 19)
IBP FNS
City CHI PHL SAN
FNS Chicago 0 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
IDT Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 0 0
New York 0 0 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
Philadelphia 1 1 1
San Francisco 1 1 1
SERVINT Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 1 1 0
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
Philadelphia 1 1 0
IBP ICG
City ATL CHI DAL NEW
FNS Chicago 0 1 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 0 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0 0
IDT Atlanta 1 1 0 1
Chicago 1 1 0 1
New York 1 1 0 1
SAVVIS Atlanta 1 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1 1
Dallas 1 1 1 1
New York 1 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 1 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1 1
Dallas 1 1 1 1
New York 1 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0
IBP IDT
City ATL CHI NEW
FNS Chicago 0 1 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 1 1 1
IDT Atlanta 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1
Dallas 0 0 0
New York 1 1 1
Philadelphia 0 0 0
IBP SAVVIS
City ATL CHI DAL NEW PHI SAN
FNS Chicago 0 1 0 0 1 1
Philadelphia 0 1 0 0 1 1
San Francisco 0 1 0 0 1 1
ICG Atlanta 1 1 1 1 0 0
Chicago 1 1 1 1 0 0
Dallas 1 1 1 1 0 0
New York 1 1 1 1 0 0
IDT Atlanta 1 1 0 1 0 0
Chicago 1 1 0 1 0 0
New York 1 1 0 1 0 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0 0 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 1 1 1 1 1 0
Chicago 1 1 1 1 1 0
Dallas 1 1 1 1 1 0
New York 1 1 1 1 1 0
Philadelphia 1 1 1 1 1 0
IBP SERVINT
City ATL CHI DAL NEW PHL
FNS Chicago 0 1 0 0 1
Philadelphia 0 1 0 0 1
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
ICG Atlanta 1 1 1 1 0
Chicago 1 1 1 1 0
Dallas 1 1 1 1 0
New York 1 1 1 1 0
IDT Atlanta 1 1 0 1 0
Chicago 1 1 0 1 0
New York 1 1 0 1 0
SAVVIS Atlanta 1 1 1 1 1
Chicago 1 1 1 1 1
Dallas 1 1 1 1 1
New York 1 1 1 1 1
Philadelphia 1 1 1 1 1
San Francisco 0 0 0 0 0
SERVINT Atlanta 0 0 0 0 0
Chicago 0 0 0 0 0
Dallas 0 0 0 0 0
New York 0 0 0 0 0
Philadelphia 0 0 0 0 0
* ATL = Atlanta, CHI = Chicago, DAL = Dallas,
NEW = New York, PHI = Philadelphia, SAN = San Francisco.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
is a 2 × 2 binary matrix.
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion