The Flattening Internet Topology: Natural Evolution, Unsightly Barnacles or Contrived Collapse?

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4979)


In this paper we collect and analyze traceroute measurements to show that large content providers (e.g., Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!) are deploying their own wide-area networks, bringing their networks closer to users, and bypassing Tier-1 ISPs on many paths. This trend, should it continue and be adopted by more content providers, could flatten the Internet topology, and may result in numerous other consequences to users, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), content providers, and network researchers.


Autonomous System Content Provider Internet Service Provider Content Delivery Network Internet Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexa’s Top 500 Sites,
  2. 2.
    Augustin, B., Cuvellier, X., Orgogozo, B., Viger, F., Latapy, M., Teixeira, R.: Avoiding Traceroute Anomalies with Paris Traceroute. In: Internet Measurement Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., Braden, R.: Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet. In: ACM SIGCOMM, Pittsburgh, PA (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cringely, R.: Google-Mart: Sam Walton Taught Google More About How to Dominate the Internet than Microsoft Ever Did (November 17, 2005),
  5. 5.
    Crovella, M., Krishnamurthy, B.: Internet Measurement: infrastructure, traffic & applications. Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, England (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Data Center Knowledge Web site,
  7. 7.
    Dimitropoulos, X., Krioukov, D., Riley, G.: Revisiting Internet AS-level Topology Discovery. In: Passive and Active Measurement, Boston, MA (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donnet, B., Friedman, T., Crovella, M.: Improved Algorithms for Network Topology Discovery. In: Passive and Active Measurement, Boston, MA (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, N., Steenkiste, P.: Quantifying Internet End-to-End Route Similarity. Passive and Active Measurement, Adelaide, Australia (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Internet World Statistics (statistics from June 30, 2007),
  11. 11.
    Kurose, J., Ross, K.: Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach. Addison Wesley, Boston, MA (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehta, S.: Behold the server farm. Fortune magazine (July 26, 2006),
  13. 13.
    Norton, W.: The Evolution of the U.S. Internet Peering Ecosystem. Equinox White Paper (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norton, W.: A Business Case for ISP Peering. Equinox White Paper (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peterson, L., Shenker, S., Turner, J.: Overcoming the Internet Impasse through Virtualization. IEEE Computer (April 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., McCanne, S.: Towards an Evolvable Internet Architecture. In: ACM SIGCOMM, Philadelphia, PA (August 2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raynovich, R.: Google’s Own Private Internet,
  18. 18.
    Sherwood, R., Spring, N.: Touring the Internet in a TCP Sidecar. In: Internet Measurement Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spring, N., Mahajan, R., Wetherall, D.: Measuring ISP Topologies with Rocketfuel. In: ACM SIGCOMM, Pittsburgh, PA (August 2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spring, N., Wetherall, D., Anderson, T.: Scriptroute: A Public Internet Measurement Facility. In: USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS), Seattle, WA (March 2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Team Cymru IP to ASN Lookup page,
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Wikipedia article, Tier 1 network,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.HP LabsPalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.IIT DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations