Uncovering the Big Players of the Web

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7189)


In this paper we aim at observing how today the Internet large organizations deliver web content to end users. Using one-week long data sets collected at three vantage points aggregating more than 30,000 Internet customers, we characterize the offered services precisely quantifying and comparing the performance of different players. Results show that today 65% of the web traffic is handled by the top 10 organizations. We observe that, while all of them serve the same type of content, different server architectures have been adopted considering load balancing schemes, servers number and location: some organizations handle thousands of servers with the closest being few milliseconds far away from the end user, while others manage few data centers. Despite this, the performance of bulk transfer rate offered to end users are typically good, but impairment can arise when content is not readily available at the server and has to be retrieved from the CDN back-end.


Video Content Vantage Point Round Trip Time Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function Content Delivery Network 
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.
    Labovitz, C., Iekel-Johnson, S., McPherson, D., Oberheide, J., Jahanian, F.: Internet Inter-domain Traffic. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2010 Conference, pp. 75–86. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Su, A.-J., Choffnes, D.R., Kuzmanovic, A., Bustamante, F.E.: Drafting Behind Akamai (Travelocity-based Detouring). SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 36, 435–446 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Triukose, S., Wen, Z., Rabinovich, M.: Measuring a Commercial Content Delivery Network. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2011, pp. 467–476. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nygren, E., Sitaraman, R.K., Sun, J.: The Akamai Network: a Platform for High-performance Internet Applications. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 44, 2–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torres, R., Finamore, A., Kim, J., Mellia, M., Munafò, M., Rao, S.: Dissecting Video Server Selection Strategies in the YouTube CDN. In: IEEE ICDCS (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahanti, A., Williamson, C., Carlsson, N., Arlitt, M., Mahanti, A.: Characterizing the File Hosting Ecosystem: A View from the Edge. Perform. Eval. 68, 1085–1102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finamore, A., Mellia, M., Meo, M., Munafò, M.M., Rossi, D.: Experiences of Internet Traffic Monitoring with Tstat. IEEE Network 25(3), 8–14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonfiglio, D., Mellia, M., Meo, M., Rossi, D., Tofanelli, P.: Revealing Skype Traffic: When Randomness Plays with You. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 37, 37–48 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finamore, A., Mellia, M., Meo, M., Rossi, D.: Kiss: Stochastic Packet Inspection Classifier for UDP Traffic. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 18(5), 1505–1515 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Ager, B., Mühlbauer, W., Smaragdakis, G., Uhlig, S.: Comparing DNS Resolvers in the Wild. In: ACM IMC (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNITUoR c/o Politecnico di TorinoItaly
  2. 2.Dept. of Electronics and TelecommunicationsPolitecnico di TorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations