[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Network Working Group                                              T. Li
INTERNET-DRAFT                                          Juniper Networks
Expire in six months                                          Y. Rekhter
                                                           cisco Systems
                                                               June 1996


                  Towards a Cost Model for Routing and Addressing
                        <draft-li-piara-cost-model-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   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).

Introduction

   The IP address space is a fixed size, fully recyclable resource which
   must be shared amongst the entire Internet community in order to
   achieve global connectivity.  Similarly, the routing table entries in
   the routers that comprise the backbone are a scarce resource.
   Squandering either of these resources can lead to an Internet in
   which some systems have significantly reduced reachability.

   There are a variety of mechanisms which could be employed to ensure
   that neither address space nor routing table space is needlessly
   wasted.  Some have proposed [Rekhter, Resnick] that a market based
   approach is a practical and reasonable allocation of these scarce
   resources.

   This memo is a preliminary investigation into a cost model for
   routing and addressing services, in an attempt to understand the
   interaction between the address market and the routing table entry
   market. As this is a preliminary model, it makes some significant
   simplifications.  It's hoped that this memo will also interest those



Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Towards a Cost Model                 June 1996


   more skilled in the art of cost modeling to correct and refine this
   model.

The Intuitive Model

   We begin by constructing the model based on the costs that the user
   sees when provisioning Internet service.  We make the simplifying
   assumption that the user needs to provision a singly homed, non-
   transit domain (a.k.a., a stub network) that can be addresse entirely
   by a single prefix (i.e., a contiguous power of two range of
   addresses).  Note that the following analysis can be extended for
   multiple prefixes by extending the cost functions to take vectors of
   prefixes as arguments.

   In purchasing such an Internet service, we posit that there are three
   significant costs: the cost of bandwidth, the cost of addressing, and
   the cost of routing.  We'll proceed by describing these components
   intuitively and then turn to a more formal description.  The cost of
   bandwidth includes the cost of the link, both in installation and
   periodic charges, and the hardware necessary to support both ends of
   the link (e.g., routers, CSU/DSU's, cables, etc.).  There will also
   be an administrative component to support the link and other non-
   addressing and non-routing services, which we will consider to be
   part of the cost of bandwidth in order to simplify this analysis.
   Note that this implies that the cost of bandwidth is a function of
   the bandwidth requested and the service provider that it's requested
   from.  Also note that we make the simplifying assumption that
   bandwidth from all providers is identical, implying a consistent
   level of service from all competitors in a local market.

   The cost of addressing is the amount that the user must pay to borrow
   a particular prefix from an address broker.  The bandwidth provider
   may or may not be an address broker.  This cost would include any
   charges for the administrative costs of lending out the prefix, such
   as DNS PTR record maintenance.  Thus, the cost of addressing is a
   function of the prefix and the address broker.  It's likely that the
   addressing cost is charged periodically.

   The cost of routing is the amount that the user must pay to the
   provider for routing information to the remainder of the Internet.
   This may involve making configuration changes in a series of routers,
   in a routing registry, or in the administrative databases of several
   domains.  In the common case where the bandwidth provider is also the
   address broker, it is likely that the cost of routing is amortized
   across all customers sharing the particular address block that
   contains the user's prefix and that the cost of routing is a periodic
   charge.




Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Towards a Cost Model                 June 1996


   Note that not all of these costs may be apparent today.  This is not
   to say that these costs do not exist, just that they're not charged
   for separately.

The Formal Model

   In this section, we describe all of the above in a more formal
   manner.  First, we let the cost of bandwidth be a function Cbw : BW X
   Prov -> $, where BW is the space of possible bandwidths, Prov is the
   space of possible providers, and $ is the space of monetary cost.  We
   will also write this as Cbw(bw, P), where bw is the bandwidth and P
   is the provider.

   Second, we let the cost of addressing be a function Ca : Pref X Brok
   -> $, where Pref is the space of possible address prefixes, and Brok
   is the space of address brokers.  We will also write this as Ca(p,
   B).  Note that the space of address brokers may intersect with the
   space of service providers.

   Third, we let the cost of routing be a function Cr : Pref X Prov ->
   $.  We will write this as Cr(p, P). We assume that Cr is not
   sensitive the size of prefix p, but it is sensitive to the allocation
   of prefix p.  Thus, it costs the same to route a /16 or a /8 prefix.
   However, a /16 from another provider may cost more to route that a
   /16 where P = B.

   Finally, we let the total cost be the function C : BW X Prov X Brok X
   Pref -> $.  We will write this as C(bw, P, B, p).  Further, as this
   is simply the sum of the previous three functions, we have:

        C(bw,P,B,p) = Cbw(bw,P) + Ca(p,B) + Cr(p,P)            (1)

Some Observations

   We make the simplifying assumptions that the market always has
   perfect information and that the consumer will always minimize the
   overall cost C.

   Observation 1: If Ca(p,B) is insensitive to the size of prefix p,
   then address space will be squandered.

   In this situation, there is no negative feedback to the user for
   wasting address space.  As there is potential benefit in having
   future address space available, it is in the user's best interest to
   overstate their addressing needs.  Subsequently, demand for addresses
   will increase, and Ca(p,B) will rise.  If it rises sufficiently, then
   those who have borrowed an address will subdivide their unused
   addresses, becoming brokers themselves, thus resulting in a Ca(p,B)



Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Towards a Cost Model                 June 1996


   which is sensitive to the size of the prefix.  This is to say that an
   insensitive Ca(p,B) is self-correcting.

   Corollary 1: If Ca(p,B) is 0, then address space will be squandered.

   Observation 2: If Ca(p,B) << C(bw,P,B,p), then address space will be
   squandered.

   By reasoning similar to that of Observation 1, the marginal cost of
   unnecessary address space must exceed the user's marginal benefit of
   such space, given the user's cost sensitivity or address space will
   be wasted.  For example, consider the case where Ca is only 0.01% of
   C, and doubling the size of the prefix results in doubling Ca.  The
   resulting Ca is only 0.02% of C, which is not a significant deterrent
   to wasting addresses.

   Corollary 2: If Ca(p,B) << Cr(p,P), then address space will be
   squandered.

   Observation 3: We call a prefix which is borrowed from the service
   provider a 'local prefix'.  We call a prefix which borrowed from a
   broker who is not the service provider a 'foreign prefix'.  If
   Cr(p,P) is insensitive to whether a prefix is local or foreign, then
   routing table entries will be squandered.

   Note that we also make the simplifying assumption that proxy
   aggregation is not effective.  In the above scenario, if the local
   and foreign prefixes are identical in cost, then it the user will
   optimize wholly based on the independent costs of bandwidth and
   address space, obtaining address space from any address broker,
   regardless of the possibilities of aggregation.  Normal entropy at
   this point will eventually flood the backbone routing tables.  Note
   that a Cr(p,P) which is insensitive to foreign prefixes is also self
   correcting as it will increase demand on routing table entries,
   thereby encouraging aggregation.

   Corollary 3: If Cr(p,P) = 0 for a foreign prefix, routing table
   entries will be squandered.

   Observation 4: If Cr(p,P) << C(bw,P,B,p) then routing table entries
   will be squandered.

   By reasoning similar to observation 2.

   Corollary 4: If Ca(p,B) >> Cr(p,P), then routing table entries will
   be squandered.

   Corollary 5: To encourage conservation, Ca(p,B) and Cr(p,P) must be



Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Towards a Cost Model                 June 1996


   proportional to Cbw(bw,P), and Ca(p,B) ~= Cr(p,P).

   From observations 2 and 4 and equation (1), it follows that
   increasing Cbw(bw,P) must also increase Ca(p,B) and Cr(p,P).  From
   corollaries 2 and 4, it follows that Ca(p,B) and Cr(p,P) must be
   roughly equal.

   Observation 5: Within the U.S., Cbw(bw,P) is predominantly a function
   of the length of the circuit and bandwidth selected.

   Hardware costs are generally a small fraction of the line costs
   involved in providing bandwidth, usually due to periodic or usage
   charges.  These charges are a function of the length of the circuit
   (or distance called) and the bandwidth of the circuit.  The
   granularity of the length of the circuit varies depending on the
   exact media (e.g., Frame Relay may be sold for a flat rate anywhere
   within a LATA.  Local loops may be charged by the mile.)  Outside the
   U.S., the local tariff structure may have significant political
   distortions.

   Corollary 6: To encourage conservation within the U.S., Ca(p,B) and
   Cr(p,P) must be a significant function of the length and bandwidth of
   the circuit.

   Note that this is a non-intuitive result which will be difficult to
   justify to most customers.  We suspect that many providers will not
   even attempt to do so, instead charging a flat rate for routing
   services, or basing the charge on prefix length.  If this occurs,
   corollary 5 implies that those who are paying the most for Internet
   services will see little economic incentive for conservation.

   It's also interesting to observe that an address broker who is not
   also the service provider has a particularly difficult situation.
   For the broker to be an agent of conservation, she must charge
   varying amounts based on the cost of bandwidth as charged by the
   service provider.  This coupling of costs between different entities
   has possibly severe legal and logistic implications, not the least of
   which is the liability of anti-trust action for price fixing.  As a
   result, it seems as if an address broker can never actually price
   address space in a manner that is consistent with address space
   conservation.

Conclusions

   This memo has attempted to posit a simple cost model for Internet
   addressing and routing in order to help understand the possible
   markets for address space and routing services.  The model focused on
   the costs as seen by an end user.  The implications of the model are



Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Towards a Cost Model                 June 1996


   rather disturbing.  If the end user does see costs that would
   encourage conservation, then the costs are non-trivial and are
   proportional to the cost of the bandwidth that he purchases.
   Further, in such a situation, there appears to be no feasible role
   for an independent address broker, resulting in users who have to get
   address space from their service provider.

   Alternatively, if a 'natural' market for address space and routing
   services develops, then the costs for these services are independent
   of the other costs of provisioning Internet services.  The
   implication is that those who are not cost sensitive will not be well
   motivated to conserve scarce resources.

   We further observe that perfect allocation of scarce resources cannot
   occur unless there is a perfectly accurate measurement of each users
   need for address space and routing services.  The willingness to pay
   for a resource is only slightly correlated with true need.  Thus, any
   scheme which depends on cost for resource allocation is inherently
   flawed and can at best provide a first order approximation.  The only
   alternative to such a cost based scheme is political allocation,
   which has a variety of its own problems.

Acknowledgements

   Tony Li's contribution to this work was supported in part by cisco
   Systems, Inc.

References

   [Rekhter] Rekhter, Yakov, "Charging for Routes", Presentation at the 35th
          IETF, March 1996

   [Resnick] Resnick, Paul, "Suggestions for Market-Based Allocation of IP
          Address Blocks", Internet Draft,
          draft-ietf-cidrd-mktbased-alloc-00.txt, Feb. 1996

Authors' Addresses

   Tony Li
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   101 University Ave Ste 240
   Palo Alto, CA 94301
   Phone: +1 (415) 614 4145
   Email: tli@jnx.com

   Yakov Rekhter
   cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 Tasman Dr.



Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT            Towards a Cost Model                 June 1996


   San Jose, CA 95134
   Phone: (914) 528-0090
   Email: yakov@cisco.com
















































Li, Rekhter                                                     [Page 7]