Packet Clearing House
2016 Survey of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements
Bill Woodcock Marco Frigino Packet Clearing House November 21, 2016 Packet Clearing House PCH Peering Survey 2011 Five years ago, PCH conducted the first-ever broad survey of Internet peering agreements. We asked ISPs to tell us three things about each of their peering agreements: • Is the agreement formalized in a written document, or is it a “handshake” agreement? • Does the agreement have symmetric terms, or do the parties exchange different things?
• What is the country of governing law of the agreement? Packet Clearing House PCH Peering Survey 2011 The previous largest survey analyzed sixteen agreements, all in the United States. In 2011 we analyzed 142,210 agreements from 4,331 Internet service provider networks in 96 countries. https://pch.net/resources/papers/peering-survey
Packet Clearing House
The 2011 report has been downloaded more than 500,000 times in five years
1000000
100000
10000
1000
100
10 Downloads per Month per Downloads
1
Dec-12 Apr-13 Aug-13 Dec-13 Apr-14 Aug-14 Dec-14 Apr-15 Aug-15 Dec-15 Apr-16 Aug-16 Packet Clearing House
In 2011, we promised to repeat the survey every five years, in order to document trends in the industry and begin building time-series data.
Packet Clearing House
“The PCH peering survey provides a unique insight into why the Internet’s model of traffic exchange has been so successful around the world. It underlines the degree of global uniformity across regulatory regimes that would otherwise not be able to harmonize among themselves. This information is invaluable to our work in providing advice to policy makers.”
– Dr. Sam Paltridge Directorate of Science, Technology and Innovation OECD
Packet Clearing House PCH Peering Survey 2016 Today, we’re publishing the results of our 2016 survey. In addition to the three questions we asked in 2011... • Is the agreement formalized in a written document, or is it a “handshake” agreement? • Does the agreement have symmetric terms, or do the parties exchange different things? • What is the country of governing law of the agreement? We added one more question: Are you exchanging IPv6 traffic with this peer? • Packet Clearing House PCH Peering Survey 2016 We analyzed 1,935,822 interconnection agreements representing 10,794 carrier networks in 148 countries including all 35 OECD member countries and 21 UN LDCs.
Packet Clearing House Proportion of Representation
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 US RU UK DE ID FR AU CA NL PL BR UA JP IT CZ CH AT ZA BG EU BD NZ AR SE IE SG HK ES NO BE
59.6% overall Packet Clearing House PCH Peering Survey 2016 955,510 of the agreements (49.35% of the total) comprised 477,755 matching pairs, in which both parties to the same agreement responded to our survey, and in 98.71% of those cases, both parties’ answers to each of the questions were in agreement. That’s a slight decrease from 99.52% five years ago, and we attribute that to the addition of the IPv6 question. The more questions we ask, the more opportunities exist for disagreement between each pair of answers. In addition to the survey, we conducted unstructured follow-
up interviews with 35 of the responding networks. Packet Clearing House Key Findings 99.93% of peering agreements are informal “handshake” agreements, in which both parties agree to abide by globally-recognized terms. This is up from 99.51% in 2011. From 1 in 200 then to 1 in 1,400 today. This finding was not thrown off by unrepresentational participation: essentially all major backbone providers are represented in the data-set. Follow-up interviews with holders of written contracts indicated that, while the contracts are being allowed to expire, the relationships they formalized continue to grow. Packet Clearing House Key Findings 99.98% of peering agreements had symmetric terms, in which each party gave and received the same conditions as the other. This is up from 99.73% in 2011. From 1 in 400 then to 1 in 4,800 today. Market-dominant incumbents routinely advance the fiction that “paid peering” or minimum peering requirements are commonplace. They exist do exist, but in vanishingly small numbers, and those numbers continue to decline rapidly relative to overall growth.
Packet Clearing House Key Findings Strong preferences continue to exist for contractual country of governing law, closely paralleling perceived law & order and the degree to which legislation and governmental policy protect carriers from liability for content. The United States, Canada, and Japan remain favored and, post-Snowden, Iceland and Finland join the list of favored countries. By contrast Romania, the Ukraine, and Russia continue to be selected least often, and China and Thailand join them this year near the bottom
of the list. Packet Clearing House Country of Governing Law
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 US CA FI JP IS SG UK EE IE NL VN SI SK AE KH CN TH RO UA RU
Packet Clearing House Key Findings Nearly all peering is multilateral peering, implemented through route-servers and multilateral agreements. Incumbents often attempt to deride multilateral peering as peripheral and inconsequential. In fact, it was already becoming the dominant practice in 2011, and now accounts for the vast majority of AS adjacencies. Multilateral peering commands less mind-share because it’s fire-and-forget. An agreement is established once, and continues to accrue new participants over time. Packet Clearing House Interconnection Partners per Network
1000
– Moscow MLPA 100 – London MLPA
– Jakarta MLPA
10
1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Packet Clearing House Jakarta Matrix Exchange MLPA
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 1,010 1,020 1,030 1,040 1,050 1,060 1,070 1,080 1,090 Packet Clearing House Countries that Benefit from MLPAs
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000 Adjacencies 100 Peers 10
1 MLPAs ID FR UK RU DE AU US PL CA NL SG CZ CH ZA BD AR JP BG HK IT AT NZ IE UA PH TZ KR NG AE Packet Clearing House Key Findings Only 74,886 (3.88%) were exchanging IPv6 traffic, while 1,854,411 (96.12%) were not. This is an unfortunate finding, as we are now twenty years into IPv6 deployment. Of the thirty most-represented countries in our dataset, Russia had the highest average rate of IPv6 routing at 21%, followed by the Ukraine at 10%, Brazil at 6%, and the United States at 4.7%. Every other country in the top thirty fell below the global average of 3.88%
Packet Clearing House IPv6 Routing
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% RU UA BR US CH AT BE JP CZ IT SE GB SG BG CA ZA NZ NO PL IE HK DE BD ES NL AR AU FR ID
Packet Clearing House
21%
4.7%
0.2% Packet Clearing House IPv6 Routing
$1,000,000
LI LU $100,000 QA NO CH US FI MT OM $10,000 KZ RU
ID PS MD PK $1,000 KG UG RW MW MG GM
0.01% 0.10% 1% 10% 100% Packet Clearing House American Interconnection Partners
Others 41% Domestic Others 32% 23% Domestic NL 27% 4% DE UK RU 5% 7% 16% DE 11% CA AU 2% NL 3% 7% RU UK FR ID 5% 7% 5% 5% Packet Clearing House Russian Interconnection Partners
Others 18% CH 1% Others FR Domestic 9% ID US 2% 84% 2% 2% NL UA 3% 5% UA 3% Domestic UK 3% 57% DE 5% US 6%
Packet Clearing House British Interconnection Partners
RU Others 47% 28% Domestic Domestic 1% Others 33% UA 7% 3% US 30% IT ZA 13% IT 2% 2% ID 3% US RU 10% NL 4% DE FR 5% 7% 5%
Packet Clearing House German Interconnection Partners
US Domestic 41% 17% Others Domestic 31% 3% Others 9% RU US 30% IT 13% 17%
SG NL IT 3% 10% 3% FR ID UK RU 5% 7% 5% 6% Packet Clearing House
IPv4 Size Relative to Number of Interconnections
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000 IPv4 Addresses 10,000
1,000
100 IPv4 Prefixes 10
1 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Packet Clearing House
IPv6 Size Relative to Number of Interconnections
10,000,000,000
100,000,000
1,000,000 IPv6 Addresses (divided by 10^24 for clarity) 10,000
100
IPv6 Prefixes 1 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Packet Clearing House Thanks, and Questions?
Copies of this presentation are available in PDF format.
Bill Woodcock Executive Director Packet Clearing House [email protected] +1 415 831 3103
This presentation is ©2016 by Packet Clearing House CC BY-NC-SA