Motivation Measuring Decentralized Video Streaming: Background A Case Study of DTube Methodology Analysis
Conclusions Trinh Viet Doan, Tat Dat Pham, Markus Oberprieler, Vaibhav Bajpai
Technical University of Munich (TUM)
IFIP Networking, June 22–25, 2020
1 / 20 Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions Motivation
2 / 20 I Most Internet traffic: video streaming, mostly from centralized services
I YouTube 8.7%, Netflix 12.6% of all global downstream traffic as of 2019 [4]
I Proposals of decentralized solutions to counteract centralization
I Decentralized video streaming:
I In the past: P2P video streaming around 2010 I More recently: DTube (2017), PeerTube (2018), LBRY.tv (2020), ...
⇒ Comparing video streaming from centralized and decentralized services using YouTube and DTube
Motivation
Motivation
Background I Increasing concerns about consolidation in the Internet [1, 2, 3] Methodology Analysis
Conclusions
3 / 20 I Proposals of decentralized solutions to counteract centralization
I Decentralized video streaming:
I In the past: P2P video streaming around 2010 I More recently: DTube (2017), PeerTube (2018), LBRY.tv (2020), ...
⇒ Comparing video streaming from centralized and decentralized services using YouTube and DTube
Motivation
Motivation
Background I Increasing concerns about consolidation in the Internet [1, 2, 3] Methodology Analysis I Most Internet traffic: video streaming, mostly from centralized services Conclusions I YouTube 8.7%, Netflix 12.6% of all global downstream traffic as of 2019 [4]
3 / 20 I Decentralized video streaming:
I In the past: P2P video streaming around 2010 I More recently: DTube (2017), PeerTube (2018), LBRY.tv (2020), ...
⇒ Comparing video streaming from centralized and decentralized services using YouTube and DTube
Motivation
Motivation
Background I Increasing concerns about consolidation in the Internet [1, 2, 3] Methodology Analysis I Most Internet traffic: video streaming, mostly from centralized services Conclusions I YouTube 8.7%, Netflix 12.6% of all global downstream traffic as of 2019 [4]
I Proposals of decentralized solutions to counteract centralization
3 / 20 ⇒ Comparing video streaming from centralized and decentralized services using YouTube and DTube
Motivation
Motivation
Background I Increasing concerns about consolidation in the Internet [1, 2, 3] Methodology Analysis I Most Internet traffic: video streaming, mostly from centralized services Conclusions I YouTube 8.7%, Netflix 12.6% of all global downstream traffic as of 2019 [4]
I Proposals of decentralized solutions to counteract centralization
I Decentralized video streaming:
I In the past: P2P video streaming around 2010 I More recently: DTube (2017), PeerTube (2018), LBRY.tv (2020), ...
3 / 20 Motivation
Motivation
Background I Increasing concerns about consolidation in the Internet [1, 2, 3] Methodology Analysis I Most Internet traffic: video streaming, mostly from centralized services Conclusions I YouTube 8.7%, Netflix 12.6% of all global downstream traffic as of 2019 [4]
I Proposals of decentralized solutions to counteract centralization
I Decentralized video streaming:
I In the past: P2P video streaming around 2010 I More recently: DTube (2017), PeerTube (2018), LBRY.tv (2020), ...
⇒ Comparing video streaming from centralized and decentralized services using YouTube and DTube
3 / 20 Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions Background
4 / 20 I Leverages variety of decentralized technologies
I Interplanetary File System (IPFS) for video storage
I Decentralized P2P network for storage and delivery of files I IPFS gateway to access IPFS content over HTTP
I Steem blockchain ecosystem for user- and metadata management
I Token rewards to incentivize content contribution
I Parallels to YouTube in terms of user-interaction features, user interface, monetary incentives
Background: DTube
Motivation
Background
Methodology I Decentralized video streaming service Analysis
Conclusions
5 / 20 I Interplanetary File System (IPFS) for video storage
I Decentralized P2P network for storage and delivery of files I IPFS gateway to access IPFS content over HTTP
I Steem blockchain ecosystem for user- and metadata management
I Token rewards to incentivize content contribution
I Parallels to YouTube in terms of user-interaction features, user interface, monetary incentives
Background: DTube
Motivation
Background
Methodology I Decentralized video streaming service Analysis
I Leverages variety of decentralized technologies Conclusions
5 / 20 I Steem blockchain ecosystem for user- and metadata management
I Token rewards to incentivize content contribution
I Parallels to YouTube in terms of user-interaction features, user interface, monetary incentives
Background: DTube
Motivation
Background
Methodology I Decentralized video streaming service Analysis
I Leverages variety of decentralized technologies Conclusions I Interplanetary File System (IPFS) for video storage
I Decentralized P2P network for storage and delivery of files I IPFS gateway to access IPFS content over HTTP
5 / 20 I Parallels to YouTube in terms of user-interaction features, user interface, monetary incentives
Background: DTube
Motivation
Background
Methodology I Decentralized video streaming service Analysis
I Leverages variety of decentralized technologies Conclusions I Interplanetary File System (IPFS) for video storage
I Decentralized P2P network for storage and delivery of files I IPFS gateway to access IPFS content over HTTP
I Steem blockchain ecosystem for user- and metadata management
I Token rewards to incentivize content contribution
5 / 20 Background: DTube
Motivation
Background
Methodology I Decentralized video streaming service Analysis
I Leverages variety of decentralized technologies Conclusions I Interplanetary File System (IPFS) for video storage
I Decentralized P2P network for storage and delivery of files I IPFS gateway to access IPFS content over HTTP
I Steem blockchain ecosystem for user- and metadata management
I Token rewards to incentivize content contribution
I Parallels to YouTube in terms of user-interaction features, user interface, monetary incentives
5 / 20 Background: DTube
Motivation
Background
I Decentralized video streaming service Methodology Analysis I Leverages variety of decentralized technologies Conclusions I Interplanetary File System (IPFS) for video storage
I Decentralized P2P network for storage and delivery of files I IPFS gateway to access IPFS content over HTTP
I Steem blockchain ecosystem for user- and metadata management
I Token rewards to incentivize content contribution
I Parallels to YouTube in terms of user-interaction features, user interface, monetary incentives
Note: Several additions/changes to DTube’s design since beginning of study in early 2019 5 / 20 Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions Methodology
6 / 20 I Measure both YouTube and DTube with the same framework/logic
I From user perspective I Possibility to add other services in the future
I Playout of videos using ExoPlayer
Methodology
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions I Development of (open-source) Android application to measure video streaming
7 / 20 I Playout of videos using ExoPlayer
Methodology
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions I Development of (open-source) Android application to measure video streaming
I Measure both YouTube and DTube with the same framework/logic
I From user perspective I Possibility to add other services in the future
7 / 20 Methodology
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions I Development of (open-source) Android application to measure video streaming
I Measure both YouTube and DTube with the same framework/logic
I From user perspective I Possibility to add other services in the future
I Playout of videos using ExoPlayer
7 / 20 Methodology
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions I Development of (open-source) Android application to measure video streaming
I Measure both YouTube and DTube with the same framework/logic
I From user perspective I Possibility to add other services in the future
I Playout of videos using ExoPlayer
7 / 20 1. Acquire Web page URLs for n videos from “trending” list of each platform 2. Navigate to Web pages, determine source URLs of videos
I Video resolution: 480p
I Different source URL determination based on video service 3. For each video: 3.1 connect() to determined media server (i.e., YouTube media server or DTube IPFS gateway) 3.2 Pass source URL to ExoPlayer for streaming/playout 3.3 Play video for one minute 4. ICMP traceroute measurements to determined media servers 5. Save and upload all measurements, schedule next iteration
Methodology Measurement Process Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
8 / 20 2. Navigate to Web pages, determine source URLs of videos
I Video resolution: 480p
I Different source URL determination based on video service 3. For each video: 3.1 connect() to determined media server (i.e., YouTube media server or DTube IPFS gateway) 3.2 Pass source URL to ExoPlayer for streaming/playout 3.3 Play video for one minute 4. ICMP traceroute measurements to determined media servers 5. Save and upload all measurements, schedule next iteration
Methodology Measurement Process Motivation
Background 1. Acquire Web page URLs for n videos from “trending” list of each platform Methodology Analysis
Conclusions
8 / 20 3. For each video: 3.1 connect() to determined media server (i.e., YouTube media server or DTube IPFS gateway) 3.2 Pass source URL to ExoPlayer for streaming/playout 3.3 Play video for one minute 4. ICMP traceroute measurements to determined media servers 5. Save and upload all measurements, schedule next iteration
Methodology Measurement Process Motivation
Background 1. Acquire Web page URLs for n videos from “trending” list of each platform Methodology Analysis
2. Navigate to Web pages, determine source URLs of videos Conclusions I Video resolution: 480p
I Different source URL determination based on video service
8 / 20 4. ICMP traceroute measurements to determined media servers 5. Save and upload all measurements, schedule next iteration
Methodology Measurement Process Motivation
Background 1. Acquire Web page URLs for n videos from “trending” list of each platform Methodology Analysis
2. Navigate to Web pages, determine source URLs of videos Conclusions I Video resolution: 480p
I Different source URL determination based on video service 3. For each video: 3.1 connect() to determined media server (i.e., YouTube media server or DTube IPFS gateway) 3.2 Pass source URL to ExoPlayer for streaming/playout 3.3 Play video for one minute
8 / 20 Methodology Measurement Process Motivation
Background 1. Acquire Web page URLs for n videos from “trending” list of each platform Methodology Analysis
2. Navigate to Web pages, determine source URLs of videos Conclusions I Video resolution: 480p
I Different source URL determination based on video service 3. For each video: 3.1 connect() to determined media server (i.e., YouTube media server or DTube IPFS gateway) 3.2 Pass source URL to ExoPlayer for streaming/playout 3.3 Play video for one minute 4. ICMP traceroute measurements to determined media servers 5. Save and upload all measurements, schedule next iteration
8 / 20 I Total video duration
I TCP connect time to media server
I Startup delay
I traceroute: IP path length
Methodology Measurement Metrics Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
9 / 20 Methodology Measurement Metrics Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
I Total video duration
I TCP connect time to media server
I Startup delay
I traceroute: IP path length
9 / 20 I February 2019–November 2019 (10 months)
I >8,500 videos measured from both platforms combined
I Over both cellular (LTE) and WiFi (University network)
I Four mobile phones
I Three locations: Munich (DE), Prague (CZ), San Diego (US)
I Four SIM card providers: T-Mobile (DE), Vodafone (DE), o2 (DE), SIMPLE Mobile (US)
Methodology Measurement Experiment Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
10 / 20 Methodology Measurement Experiment Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
I February 2019–November 2019 (10 months) Conclusions
I >8,500 videos measured from both platforms combined
I Over both cellular (LTE) and WiFi (University network)
I Four mobile phones
I Three locations: Munich (DE), Prague (CZ), San Diego (US)
I Four SIM card providers: T-Mobile (DE), Vodafone (DE), o2 (DE), SIMPLE Mobile (US)
10 / 20 I How does decentralized video streaming compare with centralized services in terms of performance?
I How distributed are such decentralized services?
I In which areas can decentralized video streaming be improved?
Motivation
Background
Methodology Analysis Analysis Conclusions
11 / 20 Motivation
Background
Methodology Analysis Analysis Conclusions
I How does decentralized video streaming compare with centralized services in terms of performance?
I How distributed are such decentralized services?
I In which areas can decentralized video streaming be improved?
11 / 20 1.0 DTube 0.8 YouTube 0.6
CDF 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Content Duration [s]
I YouTube: median 619 sec
I Longform videos (>10 minutes) allow additional advertisements
I DTube: median 323 sec
I Video length and monetization/incentive decoupled
Content Duration
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
12 / 20 I DTube: median 323 sec
I Video length and monetization/incentive decoupled
Content Duration
1.0 Motivation DTube Background 0.8 YouTube Methodology
0.6 Analysis
CDF 0.4 Conclusions 0.2 0.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Content Duration [s]
I YouTube: median 619 sec
I Longform videos (>10 minutes) allow additional advertisements
12 / 20 Content Duration
1.0 Motivation DTube Background 0.8 YouTube Methodology
0.6 Analysis
CDF 0.4 Conclusions 0.2 0.0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Content Duration [s]
I YouTube: median 619 sec
I Longform videos (>10 minutes) allow additional advertisements
I DTube: median 323 sec
I Video length and monetization/incentive decoupled
12 / 20 I YouTube: 22 ms WiFi, 44 ms cellular I DTube: 45 ms WiFi, 107 ms cellular
I 45–60 ms for both platforms and all ISPs, except SIMPLE to DTube (300 ms)
T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6
CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) CDF 0.4 YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) 0.2 DTube (Cellular) 0.0 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 TCP Connect Time [ms] TCP Connect Time [ms]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type:
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider:
TCP connections to YouTube established in about half the time compared to DTube, although roughly within same order of magnitude (< 100 ms).
TCP Connect Time
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
13 / 20 I 45–60 ms for both platforms and all ISPs, except SIMPLE to DTube (300 ms)
T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 0.8 0.6
CDF 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 TCP Connect Time [ms]
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider:
TCP connections to YouTube established in about half the time compared to DTube, although roughly within same order of magnitude (< 100 ms).
TCP Connect Time
1.0 Motivation 0.8 Background 0.6 Methodology CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) Analysis DTube (Cellular) 0.0 Conclusions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 TCP Connect Time [ms]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type: I YouTube: 22 ms WiFi, 44 ms cellular I DTube: 45 ms WiFi, 107 ms cellular
13 / 20 TCP connections to YouTube established in about half the time compared to DTube, although roughly within same order of magnitude (< 100 ms).
TCP Connect Time T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 1.0 Motivation 0.8 0.8 Background 0.6 0.6 Methodology CDF CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) 0.4 YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) 0.2 Analysis DTube (Cellular) 0.0 0.0 Conclusions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 TCP Connect Time [ms] TCP Connect Time [ms]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type: I YouTube: 22 ms WiFi, 44 ms cellular I DTube: 45 ms WiFi, 107 ms cellular
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider: I 45–60 ms for both platforms and all ISPs, except SIMPLE to DTube (300 ms)
13 / 20 TCP Connect Time T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 1.0 Motivation 0.8 0.8 Background 0.6 0.6 Methodology CDF CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) 0.4 YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) 0.2 Analysis DTube (Cellular) 0.0 0.0 Conclusions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 TCP Connect Time [ms] TCP Connect Time [ms]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type: I YouTube: 22 ms WiFi, 44 ms cellular I DTube: 45 ms WiFi, 107 ms cellular
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider: I 45–60 ms for both platforms and all ISPs, except SIMPLE to DTube (300 ms)
TCP connections to YouTube established in about half the time compared to DTube, although roughly within same order of magnitude (< 100 ms).
13 / 20 I YouTube: 0.82 sec WiFi, 1.35 sec cellular I DTube: 3.2 sec WiFi, 5.8 sec cellular
I YouTube: 1–1.8 sec for all providers I DTube: 3.1–4.6 sec for all providers but SIMPLE (9.8 sec)
T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 CDF CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) 0.4 YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) 0.2 DTube (Cellular) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Startup Delay [s] Startup Delay [s]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type:
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider:
Startup delay for DTube about four times higher compared to YouTube; cellular measurements from the US to DTube perform significantly worse.
Startup Delay
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
14 / 20 I YouTube: 1–1.8 sec for all providers I DTube: 3.1–4.6 sec for all providers but SIMPLE (9.8 sec)
T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 0.8 0.6
CDF 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Startup Delay [s]
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider:
Startup delay for DTube about four times higher compared to YouTube; cellular measurements from the US to DTube perform significantly worse.
Startup Delay
1.0 Motivation 0.8 Background 0.6 Methodology CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) Analysis DTube (Cellular) 0.0 Conclusions 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 Startup Delay [s]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type: I YouTube: 0.82 sec WiFi, 1.35 sec cellular I DTube: 3.2 sec WiFi, 5.8 sec cellular
14 / 20 Startup delay for DTube about four times higher compared to YouTube; cellular measurements from the US to DTube perform significantly worse.
Startup Delay T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 1.0 Motivation 0.8 0.8 Background 0.6 0.6 Methodology CDF CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) 0.4 YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) 0.2 Analysis DTube (Cellular) 0.0 0.0 Conclusions 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Startup Delay [s] Startup Delay [s]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type: I YouTube: 0.82 sec WiFi, 1.35 sec cellular I DTube: 3.2 sec WiFi, 5.8 sec cellular
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider: I YouTube: 1–1.8 sec for all providers I DTube: 3.1–4.6 sec for all providers but SIMPLE (9.8 sec)
14 / 20 Startup Delay T-Mobile (DE) Vodafone (DE) YouTube o2 (DE) SIMPLE Mobile (US) DTube 1.0 1.0 Motivation 0.8 0.8 Background 0.6 0.6 Methodology CDF CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) 0.4 YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) 0.2 Analysis DTube (Cellular) 0.0 0.0 Conclusions 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Startup Delay [s] Startup Delay [s]
I 75th percentiles by platform and network type: I YouTube: 0.82 sec WiFi, 1.35 sec cellular I DTube: 3.2 sec WiFi, 5.8 sec cellular
I 75th percentiles by cellular provider: I YouTube: 1–1.8 sec for all providers I DTube: 3.1–4.6 sec for all providers but SIMPLE (9.8 sec)
Startup delay for DTube about four times higher compared to YouTube; cellular measurements from the US to DTube perform significantly worse. 14 / 20 1.0 0.8 0.6
CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) DTube (Cellular) 0.0 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 IP Path Length
I By platform and network type: I YouTube: reachable within 10 IP hops (WiFi: 93.9%, cellular: 86.0%)
I DTube: reachable within 10 IP hops only for 4.6% (WiFi); minimum over cellular 11 IP hops (29.8%)
I Paths to YouTube shorter by 7–8 IP hops in comparison
traceroute success rates over cellular network highly depend on ISP. Around 90% of the YouTube destinations within 10 IP hops; for DTube, more than 95% of the destinations beyond 10 IP hops.
I traceroute: failure rate of 17.3% over cellular network
I Highly varying success rate based on cellular ISP
IP Path Lengths
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
15 / 20 1.0 0.8 0.6
CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) YouTube (Cellular) 0.2 DTube (WiFi) DTube (Cellular) 0.0 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 IP Path Length
I By platform and network type: I YouTube: reachable within 10 IP hops (WiFi: 93.9%, cellular: 86.0%)
I DTube: reachable within 10 IP hops only for 4.6% (WiFi); minimum over cellular 11 IP hops (29.8%)
I Paths to YouTube shorter by 7–8 IP hops in comparison
traceroute success rates over cellular network highly depend on ISP. Around 90% of the YouTube destinations within 10 IP hops; for DTube, more than 95% of the destinations beyond 10 IP hops.
IP Path Lengths
Motivation
I traceroute: failure rate of 17.3% Background
over cellular network Methodology
I Highly varying success rate based Analysis
on cellular ISP Conclusions
15 / 20 traceroute success rates over cellular network highly depend on ISP. Around 90% of the YouTube destinations within 10 IP hops; for DTube, more than 95% of the destinations beyond 10 IP hops.
IP Path Lengths 1.0 0.8 Motivation
I traceroute: failure rate of 17.3% 0.6 Background
CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) over cellular network YouTube (Cellular) Methodology 0.2 DTube (WiFi) I Highly varying success rate based DTube (Cellular) Analysis on cellular ISP 0.0 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Conclusions IP Path Length
I By platform and network type: I YouTube: reachable within 10 IP hops (WiFi: 93.9%, cellular: 86.0%)
I DTube: reachable within 10 IP hops only for 4.6% (WiFi); minimum over cellular 11 IP hops (29.8%)
I Paths to YouTube shorter by 7–8 IP hops in comparison
15 / 20 IP Path Lengths 1.0 0.8 Motivation
I traceroute: failure rate of 17.3% 0.6 Background
CDF 0.4 YouTube (WiFi) over cellular network YouTube (Cellular) Methodology 0.2 DTube (WiFi) I Highly varying success rate based DTube (Cellular) Analysis on cellular ISP 0.0 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Conclusions IP Path Length
I By platform and network type: I YouTube: reachable within 10 IP hops (WiFi: 93.9%, cellular: 86.0%)
I DTube: reachable within 10 IP hops only for 4.6% (WiFi); minimum over cellular 11 IP hops (29.8%)
I Paths to YouTube shorter by 7–8 IP hops in comparison
traceroute success rates over cellular network highly depend on ISP. Around 90% of the YouTube destinations within 10 IP hops; for DTube, more than 95% of the destinations beyond 10 IP hops.
15 / 20 YouTube DTube
Google LLC, US MNET-AS, DE O2, CZ T-Mobile, US TDDE-ASN1, DE OVH, FR All All (AS15169) (AS8767) (AS5610) (AS21928) (AS6805) (AS16276) cellular 921 (18.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 1061 (21.7%) 634 (28.9%) 634 (28.9%) WiFi 3623 (74.2%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3822 (78.3%) 1556 (71.1%) 1556 (71.1%) All 4544 (93.1%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 4883 (100%) 2190 (100%) 2190 (100%)
I YouTube: Videos streamed from nearby ISP ASes (caches) and Google AS
I DTube: All videos streamed from OVH AS16276
All traces to DTube end in OVH AS (FR), while YouTube traces end in ISP caches and Google ASes, indicating locational centralization for DTube.
Destination ASes
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
16 / 20 DTube
OVH, FR All (AS16276) 634 (28.9%) 634 (28.9%) 1556 (71.1%) 1556 (71.1%) 2190 (100%) 2190 (100%)
I DTube: All videos streamed from OVH AS16276
All traces to DTube end in OVH AS (FR), while YouTube traces end in ISP caches and Google ASes, indicating locational centralization for DTube.
Destination ASes
Motivation YouTube Background
Google LLC, US MNET-AS, DE O2, CZ T-Mobile, US TDDE-ASN1, DE Methodology All (AS15169) (AS8767) (AS5610) (AS21928) (AS6805) Analysis cellular 921 (18.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 1061 (21.7%) Conclusions WiFi 3623 (74.2%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3822 (78.3%) All 4544 (93.1%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 4883 (100%)
I YouTube: Videos streamed from nearby ISP ASes (caches) and Google AS
16 / 20 All traces to DTube end in OVH AS (FR), while YouTube traces end in ISP caches and Google ASes, indicating locational centralization for DTube.
Destination ASes
Motivation YouTube DTube Background
Google LLC, US MNET-AS, DE O2, CZ T-Mobile, US TDDE-ASN1, DE OVH, FR Methodology All All (AS15169) (AS8767) (AS5610) (AS21928) (AS6805) (AS16276) Analysis cellular 921 (18.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 1061 (21.7%) 634 (28.9%) 634 (28.9%) Conclusions WiFi 3623 (74.2%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3822 (78.3%) 1556 (71.1%) 1556 (71.1%) All 4544 (93.1%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 4883 (100%) 2190 (100%) 2190 (100%)
I YouTube: Videos streamed from nearby ISP ASes (caches) and Google AS
I DTube: All videos streamed from OVH AS16276
16 / 20 Destination ASes
Motivation YouTube DTube Background
Google LLC, US MNET-AS, DE O2, CZ T-Mobile, US TDDE-ASN1, DE OVH, FR Methodology All All (AS15169) (AS8767) (AS5610) (AS21928) (AS6805) (AS16276) Analysis cellular 921 (18.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 1061 (21.7%) 634 (28.9%) 634 (28.9%) Conclusions WiFi 3623 (74.2%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3822 (78.3%) 1556 (71.1%) 1556 (71.1%) All 4544 (93.1%) 3 (0.1%) 196 (4.0%) 105 (2.2%) 35 (0.7%) 4883 (100%) 2190 (100%) 2190 (100%)
I YouTube: Videos streamed from nearby ISP ASes (caches) and Google AS
I DTube: All videos streamed from OVH AS16276
All traces to DTube end in OVH AS (FR), while YouTube traces end in ISP caches and Google ASes, indicating locational centralization for DTube.
16 / 20 Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions Conclusions
17 / 20 I Limited set of (network-related) measurement metrics
I Limited number of measurement configurations, geographical bias
I DTube as only representative for decentralized video streaming
I Several additions/changes to DTube (video sources, tokens, ...)
Conclusions: Limitations
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
18 / 20 Conclusions: Limitations
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions I Limited set of (network-related) measurement metrics
I Limited number of measurement configurations, geographical bias
I DTube as only representative for decentralized video streaming
I Several additions/changes to DTube (video sources, tokens, ...)
18 / 20 I Higher connection and startup delays for DTube compared to YouTube
I TCP connect times about twice as high (WiFi 45 ms, cellular 107 ms) I Startup delay about four times higher (WiFi 3.2 sec, cellular 5.8 sec) I IP path lengths higher by 7–8 IP hops
I Locational centralization of DTube
I Private IPFS network, lack of distributed content servers I Low number of videos from public IPFS network/gateways
I However, DTube and decentralized technologies still under development
I Open-source Android app: extensible for other streaming services
App Analysis
[ trinhviet.doan | dat.pham | markus.oberprieler | vaibhav.bajpai ]@tum.de
Conclusions: Summary
Motivation
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Conclusions
19 / 20 I Locational centralization of DTube
I Private IPFS network, lack of distributed content servers I Low number of videos from public IPFS network/gateways
I However, DTube and decentralized technologies still under development
I Open-source Android app: extensible for other streaming services
App Analysis
[ trinhviet.doan | dat.pham | markus.oberprieler | vaibhav.bajpai ]@tum.de
Conclusions: Summary
I Higher connection and startup delays for DTube compared to YouTube Motivation
I TCP connect times about twice as high (WiFi 45 ms, cellular 107 ms) Background I Startup delay about four times higher (WiFi 3.2 sec, cellular 5.8 sec) Methodology I IP path lengths higher by 7–8 IP hops Analysis Conclusions
19 / 20 I However, DTube and decentralized technologies still under development
I Open-source Android app: extensible for other streaming services
App Analysis
[ trinhviet.doan | dat.pham | markus.oberprieler | vaibhav.bajpai ]@tum.de
Conclusions: Summary
I Higher connection and startup delays for DTube compared to YouTube Motivation
I TCP connect times about twice as high (WiFi 45 ms, cellular 107 ms) Background I Startup delay about four times higher (WiFi 3.2 sec, cellular 5.8 sec) Methodology I IP path lengths higher by 7–8 IP hops Analysis Conclusions I Locational centralization of DTube
I Private IPFS network, lack of distributed content servers I Low number of videos from public IPFS network/gateways
19 / 20 I Open-source Android app: extensible for other streaming services
App Analysis
[ trinhviet.doan | dat.pham | markus.oberprieler | vaibhav.bajpai ]@tum.de
Conclusions: Summary
I Higher connection and startup delays for DTube compared to YouTube Motivation
I TCP connect times about twice as high (WiFi 45 ms, cellular 107 ms) Background I Startup delay about four times higher (WiFi 3.2 sec, cellular 5.8 sec) Methodology I IP path lengths higher by 7–8 IP hops Analysis Conclusions I Locational centralization of DTube
I Private IPFS network, lack of distributed content servers I Low number of videos from public IPFS network/gateways
I However, DTube and decentralized technologies still under development
19 / 20 App Analysis
[ trinhviet.doan | dat.pham | markus.oberprieler | vaibhav.bajpai ]@tum.de
Conclusions: Summary
I Higher connection and startup delays for DTube compared to YouTube Motivation
I TCP connect times about twice as high (WiFi 45 ms, cellular 107 ms) Background I Startup delay about four times higher (WiFi 3.2 sec, cellular 5.8 sec) Methodology I IP path lengths higher by 7–8 IP hops Analysis Conclusions I Locational centralization of DTube
I Private IPFS network, lack of distributed content servers I Low number of videos from public IPFS network/gateways
I However, DTube and decentralized technologies still under development
I Open-source Android app: extensible for other streaming services
19 / 20 Conclusions: Summary
I Higher connection and startup delays for DTube compared to YouTube Motivation
I TCP connect times about twice as high (WiFi 45 ms, cellular 107 ms) Background I Startup delay about four times higher (WiFi 3.2 sec, cellular 5.8 sec) Methodology I IP path lengths higher by 7–8 IP hops Analysis Conclusions I Locational centralization of DTube
I Private IPFS network, lack of distributed content servers I Low number of videos from public IPFS network/gateways
I However, DTube and decentralized technologies still under development
I Open-source Android app: extensible for other streaming services
https://github.com/tv-doan/ifip-net-2020-app (source code) https://github.com/tv-doan/ifip-net-2020-analysis (artifacts) App Analysis
[ trinhviet.doan | dat.pham | markus.oberprieler | vaibhav.bajpai ]@tum.de 19 / 20 References
Motivation [1] Internet Society, “Internet Society Global Internet Report: Consolidation in the Background Internet Economy,” 2019. Methodology Analysis https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/. Conclusions [2] J. Arkko, B. Trammell, M. Nottingham, C. Huitema, M. Thomson, J. Tantsura, and N. ten Oever, “Considerations on Internet Consolidation and the Internet Architecture,” 2019. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ draft-arkko-iab-internet-consolidation-02.txt.
[3] Journal of Cyber Policy, “Special Issue: Consolidation of the Internet,” 2020. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcyb20/5/1.
[4] Sandvine, “Global Internet Phenomena Report,” 2019. https://bit.ly/3cvN5Qi.
20 / 20