迈向公平对等互联：ISP与内容提供商之间公平对等费用的提案
Towards Equitable Peering: A Proposal for a Fair Peering Fee Between ISPs and Content Providers
AI总结：
本文针对ISP、转接提供商与内容提供商间的对等费用争议，分别推导使净骨干传输成本相等或保持ISP净成本一致的公平费用，并揭示流量比例、内容本地化及互联点数量的影响。
摘要：
关于对等互联费用的分歧已经上升到可能引发政府监管的程度。ISP声称，内容提供商应根据下游流量的规模向其付费。转接提供商和内容提供商则声称，消费者已经向ISP支付了传输其所请求内容的费用，因此对等互联协议应当是免结算的。我们的目标是确定一家ISP与一个互联网络之间的公平支付。我们考察两家一级ISP之间的公平成本分摊，并推导出使双方净骨干传输成本相等的对等费用。随后，我们考察一家ISP与一家转接提供商之间的公平成本分摊。我们推导出使双方净骨干传输成本相等的对等费用，并说明该费用如何取决于流量比例以及该内容的本地化程度。最后，我们考察一家ISP与一家内容提供商之间的公平对等费用。我们推导出使ISP承担相同净成本的对等费用，并说明该对等费用如何取决于互联点数量以及该内容的本地化程度。我们驳斥了ISP提出的无论内容本地化程度如何都应获得付费的论点。
英文摘要：
Disagreements over peering fees have risen to the level of potential government regulation. ISPs assert that content providers should pay them based on the volume of downstream traffic. Transit providers and content providers assert that consumers have already paid ISPs to transmit the content they request and that peering agreements should be settlement-free. Our goal is to determine the fair payment between an ISP and an interconnecting network. We consider fair cost sharing between two Tier-1 ISPs, and derive the peering fee that equalizes their net backbone transportation costs. We then consider fair cost sharing between an ISP and a transit provider. We derive the peering fee that equalizes their net backbone transportation costs, and illustrate how it depends on the traffic ratio and the amount of localization of that content. Finally, we consider the fair peering fee between an ISP and a content provider. We derive the peering fee that results in the same net cost to the ISP, and illustrate how the peering fee depends on the number of interconnection points and the amount of localization of that content. We dispense with the ISP argument that it should be paid regardless of the amount of localization of content.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
