You are on page 1of 32

Networks: Perspectives and Analysis in the Future Internet

Dr. Falk von Bornstaedt, Certainties and Change for the Socio-Economic Deutsche Telekom, Brussels, June 20th, 2012. Future Internet
2.11.2011 1

Understanding QoS.

Title. Subtitle.

I pay 13€ for WLAN in the hotel

… and get only 2MByte in 40 minutes

So I watch the city panorama. No QoS either only fog!


In air travel, we are spending 1000s of € to get better quality.


But we do not have a similar option for the Internet!


That‘s how we like it: NO CONGESTION!


But the reality is often more like this! Solution? Add some lanes!


Well, are you sure that many lanes will indeed solve the problem?


24 lanes will definitely solve the problem!


The Need for QoS.

QoS becomes increasingly important for the Internet.
Example: sea-cable interruptions.

Taiwan, 12/2006

Alexandria, 1/2008

3 sea cables broke. Egypt lost 90% of its internet

Sicily, 12/2008

March 05, 2010, TMCnet Four Undersea Cables Damaged as a Result of Thursday's Earthquake in Taiwan At least four undersea fiber-optic telecommunications cables were damaged as a result of the 6.4-magnitude earthquake and aftershocks that rocked Taiwan on Thursday.

Source: Renesys, et. al.

Internet traffic is growing rapidly. Real Time Entertainment driving up network costs. Growth of Evening peak drives network cost.




traffic growth ca.50% YoY, constant network upgrades needed QoS helps Telcos to achieve higher network utilization Real-Time Entertainment = primary driver of network capacity requirements, accounting for 60% of peak downstream traffic. Subscriber usage is becoming increasingly concentrated in a smaller band of the evening, driving up network costs. (source: Sandvine) 13

A typical daily traffic profile shows severe variations. Moving elastic traffic into the off-peak periods can significantly reduce cost.
Can the peak be moved?


Examples for elastic and inelastic services.
Communication services Instant messaging E-cards §  Internet surfing §  Online address book
§  §  §  § 

VoIP solutions Web conferencing systems §  Video chat §  Unified communication
§  § 

Money/goods transfer

Online booking and reservations Online shopping search and cataloguing §  Online banking: basic (not time critical) payment
§  § 

Internet auctions Online market place (stock, trade platforms...)

Video based and streaming services

Basic VoD (if sufficient bandwidth available) Internet radio: download (on demand) based services (e.g., audio files of former radio programmes)
§  § 

All kind of IPTV business models (traditional, over the top TV,...)

Web 2.0 applications

Blogging Online social networking/ communities §  File/photo sharing or photo streaming §  Online voting
§  § 


Live video streaming (user generated)

IT world/business applications

Basic CRM, ERP etc. services if sufficient bandwidth available: no demand in interactivity or other “inelastic” features §  Security: Online back up/storage §  Telemetry: location-based services, city maps/guides

Cloud Computing/SaaS: Web services for developers, business collaboration applications, desktop applications, ERP, virtual office, virtual data centre §  Online recovery & storage services
§  § 


Online games: basic single player web-based games or life-simulation games (e.g. The Second Life, The Sims)

MMO (massive multiplayer online games)

Non IT/telecom related content

E-Government: online voting and information download E-health: News/information download or broadcast §  E-Learning: Digital libraries (e-book/digital magazine) §  Online directories, job search, news
§  § 

First aid booths (with video phone, tele-metering) Medical data exchange §  Online academic and research networks
§  § 


Defining “QoS”.


Quality of Service (QoS) vs. Quality of Experience (QoE).
User and provider perspectives.
Content Service creation Quality elements System / Service User Service consumption Quality elements

Quality of Service (QoS)

Quality of Experience (QoE)

QoS helps to guarantee certain characteristics of network and service performance, e.g., bandwidth, maximum delay. For the user, however, only the perceived Quality (QoE) counts ð Provisioning of QoE instead of QoS desirable ð Prediction and Modelling of QoE is necessary



Quality of Experience (QoE).
Proposed definitions.
ITU-T Rec. P.10 (2007): Quality of Experience (QoE): “The overall acceptability of an application or service, as perceived subjectively by the end user.” §  Includes the complete end-to-end system effects §  May be influenced by user expectations and context Dagstuhl Seminar "From Quality of Service to Quality of Experience“ (2009) Quality of Experience (QoE): “Degree of delight of the user of a service. In the context of communication services, it is influenced by content, network, device, application, user expectations and goals, and context of use.”

ITU-T Rec. E.800, 1994 Quality of Service (QoS): "The collective effect of objective service performance which ultimately determines the degree of satisfaction of a user of the service.“

Innovation in video streaming is just one example to show that any static definition or regulation of QoS is soon overtaken by reality.
Innovation impacts QoS
“Trends” §  Video on mobile devices become daily life service, supporting HD and 3D TV §  Further dimensions like 3D and holography, new applications like FreeViewpointTV §  Hi-Resolution screen already in the market (e.g. iPhone 4G), Micro projectors coming “Consequence" §  Innovations and digitization give rise to new technologies/ applications, whose QoS demands cannot be forecasted accurately §  QoS parameters like bandwidth, delay, jitter and packetcan guarantee QoS Enablers loss can only be predicted at clusterfor inelastic network performance levels with imprecision services, which in turn real-time IP improves QoE

500 50 40 30 20 10 0 0,2
MobileT V Factor 4,4 Factor 222 by 2014 by 2018

500,0 50,0


12,0 1,1 4,0





MobileH YouTubeH Mobile D D 3D

Mobile handset resolution TV full HD resolution

PC Cloud Gaming


HD2 k

HD4 k


Holograph ic


Telcos can offer QoS guarantees.


IPX – distribute and receive all applications across different provider networks.
Prepare for the next dimension of all-IP communications
Content provider
Streaming Game Hosting

Mobile operator
Internet Streaming Applications, RCSe = Rich Communication Suite (enhanced)

Seamless service across all provider networks
Voice Data

IP eXchange (IPX)
Internet Streaming Applications

Guaranteed end-to-end QoS for all services



Mobile operator


Fixed voice carrier


From a large variety of Telco’s Internet-related assets, Quality of Service (QoS) can be a significant one.
Top-level View
Content Commerce Communication

Enabler-based Service Delivery
Application Enablers
Address Book Personal Storage Hosting Presence Recomand Location mendation Search Calendar

Service Exposure

Service Creation & Execution

Service Composition

Session Control Network Presence Device Location Distribution based Control Authenticatio n Networkbased QoS Mgmt Messaging Camera Device Status Contacts Remote Device Management

Enabler Portfolio …
Social Media Identity Network Storage Mgmt. Services Services Services Web Web Content Web Services Commerce Communicati on

Network Enablers Network-


Billing Payment

Identity User Profile Management Management

IT Enablers

Web Enablers

Widget Management

Terminal Enablers


“Cloud Computing” comprises SaaS, PaaS , IaaS among others.
SaaS - Software-as-aService §  Customer Web Applications PaaS - Platform-as-aService §  Functional services IaaS - Infrastructure-as-aService §  Virtual machines



Database abstraction


Enterprise Web Applications


Application hosting

Computation services

“Cloud Computing” refers to services which offer on-demand access based on infrastructure owned and operated by 3rd parties.


Cloud Services also require cross-carrier QoS to span production, delivery and consumption domains.
Production Software/Platforms
QoS is determined by each component and through their interplay.



loss cket Pa Ban dwid th



put e mory

t lo acke P



dwid th

Data centre – the Cloud


Content Delivery Network – Network Quality of Service

Home device



Potential for Cloud QoS management exists across production, delivery and consumption domains. However, Telcos can significantly impact delivery domain through QoS management.
§  § 





Optimize the software architecture for delivery from the cloud, enabling global distribution and thereby faster delivery. Set up data centers so that computing resources can be provisioned and combined in a flexible way. Thereby, resources are available to web applications as needed, reducing bottlenecks. Create content/application delivery networks adapted to Cloud offerings. Offer interface for web applications to set network QoS parameters. This specifically involves QoS handover at peering points, QoS management for the last mile and QoS management in radio cells. Transcode content for mobile consumption, e.g. video transcoding for YouTube. Optimize smart phone operating systems for business requirements, enable them to manage network QoS. Speed up web browsers (not Telco business).


§  § 


Concept of inter-carrier Quality of Service.
QoS regime
QoS interconnection

Internet regime
Possible Bottleneck

Alternative network

Class A Class B Class C Best Effort

Deutsche Telekom

Alternative network

QoS Company Connect


QoS support mechanisms – a comparison.


§  § 

§  § 

Carriers have to invest in their networks frequently Needs a lot of resources Not a solution for cases like broken sea cables

§  §  §  § 

Every package includes a quality class Differentiated services Good scalability Better guarantee than over-provisioning Seems to get the standard

§  § 

Every connection gets a quality class No differentiation between services Easy to implement High overhead


Will QoS work in multi-carrier scenarios?
payment no payment, no quality? payment




Paid relationship: Receiver of money will guarantee quality

Unpaid relationship: no SLA for quality

End user „eyeball“


EU project: Economics and Technologies for InterCarrier Services (ETICS).
ETICS in a nutshell
§  § 

3 Years: Jan. 2010 – Dec. 2012 Consortium: §  17 partners incl. technical experts and economists §  6 EU Operators, 5 vendors, 6 acad. Advisory Panel: §  Other members of the value Chain: Vendor (Juniper), IT/ cloud infrastructure provider (Oxalya), Application Content Provider (Akamaï), Bill Norton (Dr. Peering) Participation of Deutsche Telekom: §  ICSS §  Telekom Innovation Laboratories
Main participants of EU-project ETICS:: Operators: BT, Deutsche Telekom (T-Labs & International Wholesale), Orange Labs, Telefonica I&D, Telenor Equipment-vendors: Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs France (project lead), Alcatel-Lucent Italy R&D Institutes: Forschungszentrum Telekommunikation Wien, Israel Institute of Technology Universities: Politecnico di Milano, Athens University of Economics and Business, Université de Versailles




Economics and Technologies for Inter-Carrier Services (ETICS).
Lost opportunities through current situation
No Sustainable Business Model Network: Undifferentiated Best Effort service No way to guaranty QoS-sensitive (higher revenue) services


Assured Service Quality not supported due to lack of E2E QoS agreements and business models. Uncertainty regarding strategies for new interprovider HQ services, QoS-differentiation and the economics of future options.


ETICS objectives

Propose new business, regulatory, pricing and accounting models for network interconnection services: §  Enabling the delivery of end-to-end multi-carrier network services supporting service differentiation. §  Allowing for a fair distribution of revenue shares among all the actors of the service delivery value-chain. Develop technical solutions to enforce the business QoS interconnect agreements on heterogeneous networks: §  Dynamic provisioning/configuration of network resources to provide soft & hard QoS assurance across carriers. §  SLA assurance processes to monitor contracts. §  Overall automated processes to ease the deployment of services. Experiment and test the feasibility of new interconnection models on lab platforms: §  Field Trials. §  Dissemination of the new proposed architectures and protocols toward standard bodies.




ETICS Ecosystem.
SLA Request
ETICS Customer
(NSP, end user, Infsp…)

N offers Order

ETICS community

ETICS architecture framework
§  §  §  § 

ETICS community: Set of Network Service Providers (NSP) that support the ETICS architecture. Each NSP provides assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity products. A final ETICS community connectivity offer results from the stitching or the combination of per-NSP products. ETICS community customers can be: §  Network service providers §  End customer / business customer §  Content / Information service providers (e.g. OTTs)


Summary and Conclusions.

Traffic Explosion and Price Decrease will continue
§  §  §  §  § 

TrafficOld world in fixed and even more in mobile, driven by explosion video Over-provisioning will become very costly with flat end user revenues Congestion needs to be managed Today’s internet discriminates against quality sensitive services QoS becoming more and more important

Smart networks needed
§  §  §  § 

New and better services will emerge with QoS enabled networks Intra-Carrier QoS already existing at many networks Inter-Carrier QoS very challenging, expected within the next year End-to-End QoS is the final goal