1. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP Vacation Planning RIMINI PORTOFINO SORRENTO TAORMINA Randomly picking from a list of nice locations does not sound like a brilliant idea... Knowing where they are... … and where you are... … helps a big deal! As well as a map... … and knowledge of the congestion points

2. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP Client/Server vs. Peer-to-peer ISP6 ISP2 ISP3 ISP4 ISP5 ISP1 wolverine.torrent ISP6 ISP2 ISP3 ISP4 ISP5 ISP1 http://www.google.com www.l.google.com 209.85.129.147 www.l.google.com 64.233.167.104 1 source, 1 destinationServer-side load balancing (DNS, Redir...)Network-based route selection (BGP, MPLS...)Application-side load balancing1 source, N destinationsApplication-based path selection

3. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP Peer Selection like Vacation Planning ISP6 ISP2 ISP3 ISP4 ISP5 ISP1 wolverine.torrent Common case: a peer in Madrid downloading a file from a peer in Tokyo while the same file is available in Barcelona Bad for the user: poor performance Bad for the ISP: transit costs How can the Network help peers make better choices? Providing information about topology, tomography, congestion, policies... Providing a guidance service Peer: I can choose among A, B, C, D, what should I do? Network: try B first, then C, then A, then D

4. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) IETF WG An open forum for discussing a win-win approach ISPs: Telecom Italia, Comcast, Verizon, Telefonica (TID), Deutsche Telekom (TU- Berlin), China Mobile Vendors: Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, NEC, Huawei, Juniper Others: BitTorrent, Microsoft, NeuStar, Yale University, Pando Networks Struggle between network and applications Network wants to provide guidance (topology hiding) Applications want to get plain information (privacy) The outcome will likely be somewhere in the middle If the solution won't allow topology hiding, ISPs won't deploy it (fail!) If the solution will threat user privacy, applications won't use it (fail!)

5. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP Incentives to Succeed (from Comcast's P4P Field Trial) 30% to 80% reduction in transit costs 13% to 85% increase in download speed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences

6. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP Backup

7. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP ALTO – History July 2007: “Can ISPs and P2P systems co-operate for improved performance?” V. Aggarwal, A. Feldmann, C. Scheideler (TU-Berlin / Deutsche Telekom) March 2008: “Verizon reports P4P can slash P2P's impact on ISPs,” Newsfactor.com May 2008: P2P Infrastructure Workshop (Boston, MA, USA) July 2008: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization BoF (72 nd IETF Meeting, Dublin, Ireland), arranged by Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom Italia October 2008: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization IETF WG formed (Neustar, Alcatel-Lucent and Telecom Italia)

8. | NOME AUTORE TELECOM ITALIA GROUP ALTO – Deliverables and Side Activities June 2009: Problem Statement document (RFC expected for 1/2010) January 2010: Requirements document (RFC exp. 6/2010) March 2010: Protocol specification (RFC exp. 9/2010) July 2010: Server discovery mechanism (RFC exp. 1/2011) P4P Field Trials with Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Telefonica P4P technology is proposed in ALTO as a candidate solution Various studies and analysis going on in ISPs and universities to quantify possible gain Interesting results shared in IRTF P2P Research Group Vendors pushing pre-standard solutions (Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Oversi, PeerApp)