The impact and implications of the growth in residential user-to-user traffic

Abstract

It has been reported worldwide that peer-to-peer traffic is taking up a significant portion of backbone networks. In particular, it is prominent in Japan because of the high penetration rate of fiber-based broadband access. In this paper, we first report aggregated traffic measurements collected over 21 months from seven ISPs covering 42% of the Japanese backbone traffic. The backbone is dominated by symmetric residential traffic which increased 37%in 2005. We further investigate residential per-customer trafficc in one of the ISPs by comparing DSL and fiber users, heavy-hitters and normal users, and geographic traffic matrices. The results reveal that a small segment of users dictate the overall behavior; 4% of heavy-hitters account for 75% of the inbound volume, and the fiber users account for 86%of the inbound volume. About 63%of the total residential volume is user-to-user traffic. The dominant applications exhibit poor locality and communicate with a wide range and number of peers. The distribution of heavy-hitters is heavy-tailed without a clear boundary between heavy-hitters and normal users, which suggests that users start playing with peer-to-peer applications, become heavy-hitters, and eventually shift from DSL to fiber. We provide conclusive empirical evidence from a large and diverse set of commercial backbone data that the emergence of new attractive applications has drastically affected traffic usage and capacity engineering requirements.

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Internet Activity, Australia, Mar 2005. http://www.abs.gov.au/.
2. Cisco Sampled NetFlow. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newf%t/120limit/120s/120s11/12s_sanf.htm.
3. K. Claffy, G. Polyzos, and H. Braun. Traffic characteristics of the T1 NSFNET backbone. In INFOCOM '93, pages 885--892, San Francisco, CA, Mar. 1993.
4. A. Feldmann, A. G. Greenberg, C. Lund, N. Reingold, J. Rexford, and F. True. Deriving traffic demands for operational IP networks:methodology and experience. In SIGCOMM, pages 257--270, Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 2000.
5. C. Fraleigh, S. Moon, B. Lyles, C. Cotton, M. Khan, D. Moll, R. Rockell, T. Seely, and C. Diot. Packet-Level Traffic Measurements from the Sprint IP Backbone. IEEE Network 17(6):6--16, Nov. 2003.
6. K. Fukuda, K. Cho, and H. Esaki. The impact of residential broadband traffic on Japanese ISP backbones. SIGCOMM CCR, 35(1):15--21, Jan. 2005.
7. K. P. Gummadi, R. J. Dunn, S. Saroiu, S. D. Gribble, H. M. Levy, and J. Zahorjan. Measurement, modeling, and analysis of a peer-to-peer file-sharing workload. In SOSP-19, pages 314--329, Bolton Landing, NY, Oct. 2003.
8. L. Guo, S. Chen, Z. Xiao, E. Tan, X. Ding, and X. Zhang. Measurements, analysis, and modeling of bittorrent-like systems. In IMC2005, pages 35--48, Berkeley, CA, Oct. 2005.
9. Hong Kong OFTA: Statistics of Internet Traffic Volume. http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/tele-lic/operator-licensees/opr-isp/s2.html.
10. M. Izal, G. Urvoy-Keller, E. W. Biersack, P. A. Felber, A. A. Hamra, and L. Garces-Erice. Dissecting bittorrent:Five months in a torrent's lifetime. In PAM2004 (LNCS3015), pages 1--11, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France, Apr. 2004.
11. Japan Internet Exchange Co., Ltd. http://www.jpix.co.jp.
12. Multifeed JPNAP service. http://www.jpnap.net.
13. I. Kaneko. The Technology of Winny (In Japanese). ASCII, Tokyo, Japan, 2005.
14. T. Karagiannis, A. Broido, N. Brownlee, kc claffy, and M. Faloutsos. Is p2p dying or just hiding?In Globecom 2004, pages 1532--538, Dallas, TX, Dec. 2004.
15. T. Karagiannis, P. Rodriguez, and D. Papagiannaki. Should Internet service providers fear peer-assisted content distribution?In IMC2005, pages 63--76, Berkeley, CA, Oct. 2005.
16. A. Klemm, C. Lindemann, M. K. Vernon, and O. P. Waldhorst. Characterizing the query behavior in peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In IMC2004, pages 55--67, Sicily, Italy, Oct. 2004.
17. L. Lessig. The future of ideas. Random House, 2001.
18. NSPIXP. http://nspixp.wide.ad.jp.
19. A. M. Odlyzko. Internet traffic growth: Sources and implications. In Optical Transmission Systems and Equipment for WDM Networking II, pages 1--15, San Jose, CA, Jan. 2003.
20. OECD Broadband Statistics, December 2005. http://oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband.
21. T. Oetiker. RRDtool: Round Robin Database Tool. http://ee-sta~ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool/.
22. T. Oetiker. MRTG: The multi router traffic grapher. In USENIX LISA, pages 141--147, Boston, MA, Dec. 1998.
23. V. Paxson. Growth trends in wide-area TCP connections. IEEE Network, 8(4):8--17, July 1994.
24. L. Plissonneau, J.-L. Costeux, and P. Brown. Analysis of peer-to-peer traffic on ADSL. In PAM2005 (LNCS3431), pages 69--82, Boston, MA, Mar. 2005.
25. M. Roughan, A. Greenberg, C. Kalmanek, M. Rumsewicz, J. Yates, and Y. Zhang. Experience in measuring Internet backbone traffic variability:Models, metrics, measurements and meaning. In International Teletraffic Congress 18, 2003.
26. S. Saroiu, P. K. Gummadi, and S. D. Gribble. A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. In MMCN '02, pages 156--170, San Jose, CA, Jan. 2002.
27. S. Sen and J. Wang. Analyzing peer-to-peer traffic across large networks. In IMW, pp. 137--150, Marseille, France, Nov. 2002.
28. D. Stutzbach, R. Rejaie, and S. Sen. Characterizing unstructured overlay topologies in modern p2p file-share systems. In IMC2005, pages 49--62, Berkeley, CA, Oct. 2005.
29. Statistical Outlook of the Internet in Japan (in Japanese). The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2005.

Index Terms

• Networks

  • Network services

    • Network monitoring