Content delivery network
A content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN) is a globally distributed network of proxy servers deployed in multiple data centers. The goal of a CDN is to serve content to end-users with high availability and high performance. CDNs serve a large fraction of the Internet content today, including web objects (text, graphics and scripts), downloadable objects (media files, software, documents), applications (e-commerce, portals), live streaming media, on-demand streaming media, and social networks.
Content providers such as media companies and e-commerce vendors pay CDN operators to deliver their content to their audience of end-users. In turn, a CDN pays ISPs, carriers, and network operators for hosting its servers in their data centers. Besides better performance and availability, CDNs also offload the traffic served directly from the content provider's origin infrastructure, resulting in possible cost savings for the content provider. In addition, CDNs provide the content provider a degree of protection from DoS attacks by using their large distributed server infrastructure to absorb the attack traffic. While most early CDNs served content using dedicated servers owned and operated by the CDN, there is a recent trend to use a hybrid model that uses P2P technology. In the hybrid model, content is served using both dedicated servers and other peer-user-owned computers as applicable.
- 1 Operation
- 2 Technology
- 3 Content networking techniques
- 4 CDN trends
- 5 Notable content delivery service providers
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 Further reading
Most CDNs are operated as an application service provider (ASP) on the Internet (also known as on-demand software or software as a service (SaaS)). An increasing number of Internet network owners have built their own CDNs to improve on-net content delivery, reduce demand on their own telecommunications infrastructure, and to generate revenues from content customers. This might include offering access to media streaming to internet service subscribers. Some larger software companies such as Microsoft build their own CDNs in tandem with their own products. Examples include Microsoft Azure CDN  and Amazon CloudFront.
Here content (potentially multiple copies) may exist on several servers. When a user makes a request to a CDN hostname, DNS will resolve to an optimized server (based on location, availability, cost, and other metrics) and that server will handle the request.
CDN nodes are usually deployed in multiple locations, often over multiple backbones. Benefits include reducing bandwidth costs, improving page load times, or increasing global availability of content. The number of nodes and servers making up a CDN varies, depending on the architecture, some reaching thousands of nodes with tens of thousands of servers on many remote points of presence (PoPs). Others build a global network and have a small number of geographical PoPs.
Requests for content are typically algorithmically directed to nodes that are optimal in some way. When optimizing for performance, locations that are best for serving content to the user may be chosen. This may be measured by choosing locations that are the fewest hops, the least number of network seconds away from the requesting client, or the highest availability in terms of server performance (both current and historical), so as to optimize delivery across local networks. When optimizing for cost, locations that are least expensive may be chosen instead. In an optimal scenario, these two goals tend to align, as 'edge servers' that are close to the end-user at the edge of the network may have an advantage in performance or cost.
Most CDN providers will provide their services over a varying, defined, set of PoPs, depending on the geographic coverage desired, such as United States, International or Global, Asia-Pacific, etc. These sets of PoPs can be called "edges" or "edge networks" as they would be the closest edge of CDN assets to the end user.
The CDN's Edge Network grows outward from the origin/s through further acquisitions (via purchase, peering, or exchange) of co-locations facilities, bandwidth, and servers.
Content networking techniques
The Internet was designed according to the end-to-end principle. This principle keeps the core network relatively simple and moves the intelligence as much as possible to the network end-points: the hosts and clients. As a result, the core network is specialized, simplified, and optimized to only forward data packets.
Content Delivery Networks augment the end-to-end transport network by distributing on it a variety of intelligent applications employing techniques designed to optimize content delivery. The resulting tightly integrated overlay uses web caching, server-load balancing, request routing, and content services. These techniques are briefly described below.
Web caches store popular content on servers that have the greatest demand for the content requested. These shared network appliances reduce bandwidth requirements, reduce server load, and improve the client response times for content stored in the cache.
Server-load balancing uses one or more techniques including service-based (global load balancing) or hardware-based, i.e. layer 4–7 switches, also known as a web switch, content switch, or multilayer switch to share traffic among a number of servers or web caches. Here the switch is assigned a single virtual IP address. Traffic arriving at the switch is then directed to one of the real web servers attached to the switch. This has the advantage of balancing load, increasing total capacity, improving scalability, and providing increased reliability by redistributing the load of a failed web server and providing server health checks.
A content cluster or service node can be formed using a layer 4–7 switch to balance load across a number of servers or a number of web caches within the network.
Request routing directs client requests to the content source best able to serve the request. This may involve directing a client request to the service node that is closest to the client, or to the one with the most capacity. A variety of algorithms are used to route the request. These include Global Server Load Balancing, DNS-based request routing, Dynamic metafile generation, HTML rewriting, and anycasting. Proximity—choosing the closest service node—is estimated using a variety of techniques including reactive probing, proactive probing, and connection monitoring.
CDNs use a variety of methods of content delivery including, but not limited to, manual asset copying, active web caches, and global hardware load balancers.
Content service protocols
Several protocol suites are designed to provide access to a wide variety of content services distributed throughout a content network. The Internet Content Adaptation Protocol (ICAP) was developed in the late 1990s to provide an open standard for connecting application servers. A more recently defined and robust solution is provided by the Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) protocol. This architecture defines OPES service applications that can reside on the OPES processor itself or be executed remotely on a Callout Server. Edge Side Includes or ESI is a small markup language for edge level dynamic web content assembly. It is fairly common for websites to have generated content. It could be because of changing content like catalogs or forums, or because of the personalization. This creates a problem for caching systems. To overcome this problem a group of companies created ESI.
In peer-to-peer (P2P) content-delivery networks, clients provide resources as well as use them. This means that unlike client-server systems, the content centric networks can actually perform better as more users begin to access the content (especially with protocols such as Bittorrent that require users to share). This property is one of the major advantages of using P2P networks because it makes the setup and running costs very small for the original content distributor.
If content owners are not satisfied with the options or costs of a commercial CDN service, they can create their own CDN. This is called a private CDN. A private CDN consists of POPs(points of presence) that are only serving content for their owner. These POPs can be caching servers, reverse proxies or application delivery controllers. It can be as simple as two caching servers, or large enough to serve petabytes of content.
Emergence of telco CDNs
The rapid growth of streaming video traffic uses large capital expenditures by broadband providers in order to meet this demand and to retain subscribers by delivering a sufficiently good quality of experience.
To address this, telecommunications service providers (TSPs) have begun to launch their own content delivery networks as a means to lessen the demands on the network backbone and to reduce infrastructure investments.
Telco CDN advantages
Because they own the networks over which video content is transmitted, telco CDNs have advantages over traditional CDNs.
They own the last mile and can deliver content closer to the end user because it can be cached deep in their networks. This deep caching minimizes the distance that video data travels over the general Internet and delivers it more quickly and reliably.
Telco CDNs also have a built-in cost advantage since traditional CDNs must lease bandwidth from them and build the operator’s margin into their own cost structures.
In addition, by operating their own content delivery infrastructure, telco operators have a better control over the utilization of their resources. Content management operations performed by CDNs are usually applied without or with very limited information about the network (e.g. topology, utilization etc.) of the telco-operators with which they interact or have business relationships. These pose a number of challenges for the telco-operators which have a limited sphere of actions in face of the impact of these operations on the utilization of their resources.
In contrast, the deployment of telco-CDNs allow operators to implement their own content management operations, which enable them to have better control over the utilization of their resources and, as such, provide better quality of service and experience to their end users.
In June 2011, StreamingMedia.com reported that a group of TSPs had founded an Operator Carrier Exchange (OCX) to interconnect their networks and compete more directly against large traditional CDNs like Akamai and Limelight Networks, which have extensive PoPs worldwide. This way, telcos are building a Federated CDN offer, much more interesting for a content provider willing to deliver its content to the aggregated audience of this federation.
It is likely that in a near future, other telco CDN federations will be created. They will grow by enrollment of new telco joining the federation and bringing network presence and Internet subscriber base to the existing ones.
edns-client-subnet EDNS0 option
In August 2011, a global consortium of leading Internet service providers led by Google announced their official implementation of the edns-client-subnet IETF Internet-Draft, which is intended to accurately localize DNS resolution responses. The initiative involves a limited number of leading DNS and CDN service providers. With the edns-client-subnet EDNS0 option, the recursive DNS servers of CDNs will utilize the IP address of the requesting client subnet when resolving DNS requests. If a CDN relies on the IP address of the DNS resolver instead of the client when resolving DNS requests, it can incorrectly geo-locate a client if the client is using Google anycast addresses for their DNS resolver, which can create latency problems. Initially, Google's 18.104.22.168 DNS addresses geo-located to California, potentially far from the location of the requesting client, but now the Google Public DNS servers are available worldwide.
Notable content delivery service providers
Traditional commercial CDNs
- Akamai Technologies
- Alcatel-Lucent Velocix
- Amazon CloudFront
- Windows Azure CDN
- Cotendo (acquired by Akamai)
- Distil Networks
- EdgeCast Networks (acquired by Verizon)
- Highwinds Network Group
- HP Cloud Services
- Instart Logic
- Level 3 Communications
- Limelight Networks
- Mirror Image Internet
- Rackspace Cloud Files
- Speedera Networks (acquired by Akamai)
- StreamZilla CDN Europe
- AT&T Inc.
- Bharti Airtel
- Bell Canada
- BT Group
- Deutsche Telekom
- Hibernia Networks
- Level 3 Communications
- KT (formerly Korea Telecom)
- SK Broadband
- Tata Communications
- Telecom Argentina
- Telecom Italia
- Telecom New Zealand
- Turk Telekom
Commercial CDNs using P2P for delivery
Generally speaking, all Internet service providers can provide a Content delivery network.
- Erik Nygren, Ramesh K. Sitaraman, and Jennifer Sun. "The Akamai Network: A Platform for High-Performance Internet Applications, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 44, no. 3, July 2010." (PDF).
- "Akamai goes P2P, buys Red Swoosh. GigaOM.". April 2, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2012.
- "How Content Delivery Networks Work". CDNetworks. Retrieved 22 September 2015.
- "How content delivery networks (CDNs) work". NCZOnline. Retrieved 22 September 2015.
- Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., Clark, D. D.: “End-to-End Arguments in System Design,” ACM Transactions on Communications, 2(4), 1984
- Hofmann, Markus; Leland R. Beaumont (2005). Content Networking: Architecture, Protocols, and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publisher. ISBN 1-55860-834-6.
- RFC 3568 Barbir, A., Cain, B., Nair, R., Spatscheck, O.: "Known Content Network (CN) Request-Routing Mechanisms," July 2003
- RFC 1546 Partridge, C., Mendez, T., Milliken, W.: "Host Anycasting Services," November 1993.
- RFC 3507 Elson, J., Cerpa, A.: "Internet Content Adaptation Protocol (ICAP)," April 2003.
- ICAP Forum
- RFC 3835 Barbir, A., Penno, R., Chen, R., Hofmann, M., and Orman, H.: "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)," August 2004.
- Li, Jin. "On peer-to-peer (P2P) content delivery" (PDF). Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications 1 (1): 45–63. doi:10.1007/s12083-007-0003-1.
- Stutzbach, Daniel et al. (2005). "The scalability of swarming peer-to-peer content delivery". In Boutaba, Raouf et al. NETWORKING 2005 -- Networking Technologies, Services, and Protocols; Performance of Computer and Communication Networks; Mobile and Wireless Communications Systems (PDF). Springer. pp. 15–26. ISBN 978-3-540-25809-4.
- “Online Video Sees Tremendous Growth, Spurs some Major Updates”
- “Overall Telecom CAPEX to Rise in 2011 Due to Video, 3G, LTE Investments”
- “Broadband ready to become a serious TV platform”
- D. Tuncer, M. Charalambides, R. Landa, G. Pavlou, “More Control Over Network Resources: an ISP Caching Perspective,” proceedings of IEEE/IFIP Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Zurich, Switzerland, October 2013.
- M. Claeys, D. Tuncer, J. Famaey, M. Charalambides, S. Latre, F. De Turck, G. Pavlou, “Proactive Multi-tenant Cache Management for Virtualized ISP Networks,” proceedings of IEEE/IFIP Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 2014.
- “Telcos And Carriers Forming New Federated CDN Group Called OCX (Operator Carrier Exchange)”
- "http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet". External link in
- "https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq#locations". External link in
- Buyya, R.; Pathan, M.; and Vakali, A. (2008). Content Delivery Networks. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77887-5_1. ISBN 9783540778868.
- Hau, T.; Burghardt, D.; and Brenner, W. (2011). "Multihoming, Content Delivery Networks, and the Market for Internet Connectivity". Telecommunications Policy 35 (6): 532–542. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.04.002.
- Majumdar, S.; Kulkarni, D.; and Ravishankar, C. (2007). "Addressing Click Fraud in Content Delivery Systems" (PDF). Infocom. IEEE. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2007.36.
- Nygren., E.; Sitaraman R. K.; and Sun, J. (2010). "The Akamai Network: A Platform for High-Performance Internet Applications" (PDF). ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 44 (3): 2–19. doi:10.1145/1842733.1842736. Retrieved November 19, 2012.
- Vakali, A.; and Pallis, G. (2003). "Content Delivery Networks: Status and Trends". IEEE Internet Computing 7 (6): 68–74. doi:10.1109/MIC.2003.1250586.