互联网骨干网转接与直联竞争博弈  

Transit and Peering Competition Game between Internet Backbone Providers

作　　者：王琦[1] 吕廷杰[2] 

机构地区：[1]北京邮电大学继续教育学院,北京100876 [2]北京邮电大学经济管理学院,北京100876

出　　处：《系统工程理论与实践》2007年第1期163-168,共6页Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(70472073)

摘　　要：通过动态博弈模型,研究了不同规模的骨干网对转接和直联连接方式的选择.提出了我国互联网骨干网的连接方式应为直联和转接等方式,而不仅仅是直联的一种方式.根据骨干网的规模大小,对骨干网进行分层,规模差异较小的骨干网网间进行直联的连接方式,规模差异较大的骨干网网间进行转接的连接方式.当前,监管者适当抑制规模差异较大的骨干网网间直联关系的发展,而不是过多地鼓励直联关系的发展.提出用多元线形回归的方法测算骨干网的网络价值,划分骨干网之间的层级关系.根据网络价值,决定骨干网网间是否建立对等直联、非对等直联还是转接的连接方式.Through dynamic game, we analyze how Networks asymmetric in size make a choice among interconncction models, Transit and peering and competed for users. Our paper presents that the interconnection modes of Internet backbone in our country should contain peering and transit, not only peering. Backbone networks are classified due to their different scale. The peering mode is applicable to the interconnection between backbones with similar scale, while the transit mode is better for that between backbones with asymmetric scale. Accordingly, at present, regulator should appropriately restrain the backbones with asymmetric scale adopting the peering mode, rather than promote it. The paper brings forward multiple linear regression application on assessment of IBPs＇ （ Internet backbone providers ） network Value, which determines rating of IBPs. Hierarchy determines which relationships between IBPs： symmetrical peering, asymmetrical peering and transit connectivity modes.

关 键 词：互联互通 网络规模 直联 结算 

分 类 号：TN92[电子电信—通信与信息系统]