81537cloud Management - Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Cloud Management: Content
Delivery Networks (CDN)
Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

2014 Mind Commerce Publishing
Table of Contents
List of Figures ...................................................................................................6
1
Introduction.................................................................................................7
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 7

Topics Covered ............................................................................................................................. 9
Key Questions Answered ............................................................................................................ 10
Target Audience .......................................................................................................................... 10
Companies Mentioned ................................................................................................................ 11
Content Delivery Networks ..................................................................... 12

2.1
Overview and Common Technology Employed .......................................................................... 12
2.2
CDN Technology and Functionality ............................................................................................ 16
2.2.1
Domain Name System (DNS) ............................................................................................. 17
2.2.2
Accessing Content .............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3
Apache Traffic Server ......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4
Cache Expiration ................................................................................................................. 22
2.2.5
Content Service Protocols ................................................................................................... 23
2.2.6
CDN Architecture ................................................................................................................ 23
2.2.7
Server Types ....................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.8
CDN Network Components ................................................................................................. 24
2.3
CDN Benefits............................................................................................................................... 32
2.3.1
CDN Market Drivers ............................................................................................................ 35
2.3.2
Companies Purchasing CDN Services ............................................................................... 36
2.3.3
Content Rating .................................................................................................................... 38
2.3.4
CDN is not for Content Alone .............................................................................................. 40
2.4
CDN Ecosystem .......................................................................................................................... 43
2.4.1
Revenue Models and Pricing .............................................................................................. 45
2.4.2
Carrier Role ......................................................................................................................... 47
CDN APPLICATIONS ............................................................................... 50

3.1
Current Applications .................................................................................................................... 50
3.1.1
Video Delivery Networks ..................................................................................................... 50
Page | 2

3.1.2
Application Delivery Networks (AND).................................................................................. 50
3.1.3
Future Applications.............................................................................................................. 51
3.1.4
Mobile CDN ......................................................................................................................... 52
3.2
Federated CDN ........................................................................................................................... 69
3.3
CDN in the Cloud ........................................................................................................................ 71
Key Vendor Analysis ............................................................................... 78

4.1
Nokia Siemens Networks ............................................................................................................ 79
4.1.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 80
4.1.2
Weakness............................................................................................................................ 80
4.1.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 80
4.1.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 81
4.2
Ericsson....................................................................................................................................... 81
4.2.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 81
4.2.2
Weakness............................................................................................................................ 82
4.2.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 82
4.2.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 82
4.3
Alcatel-Lucent (Velocix) .............................................................................................................. 82
4.3.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 82
4.3.2
Weakness............................................................................................................................ 83
4.3.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 83
4.3.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 83
4.4
CloudFlare ................................................................................................................................... 83
4.4.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 84
4.4.2
Weakness............................................................................................................................ 84
4.4.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 85
4.4.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 85
4.5
Amazon CloudFront .................................................................................................................... 85
4.5.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 86
4.5.2
Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 86
4.5.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 86
4.5.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 86
4.6
EdgeCast..................................................................................................................................... 87
4.6.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 87
4.6.2
Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 87
4.6.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 87
Page | 3

4.6.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 88
4.7
MaxCDN ...................................................................................................................................... 88
4.7.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 88
4.7.2
Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 89
4.7.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 89
4.7.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 89
4.8
CacheFly ..................................................................................................................................... 89
4.8.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 90
4.8.2
Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 90
4.8.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 90
4.8.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 90
4.9
Highwinds .................................................................................................................................... 91
4.9.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 91
4.9.2
Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 91
4.9.3
Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 91
4.9.4
Threats ................................................................................................................................ 91
4.10 Internap ....................................................................................................................................... 92
4.10.1 Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 92
4.10.2 Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 92
4.10.3 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 93
4.10.4 Threats ................................................................................................................................ 93
4.11 Akamai ........................................................................................................................................ 93
4.11.1 Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 94
4.11.2 Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 95
4.11.3 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 95
4.11.4 Threats ................................................................................................................................ 95
4.12 CDNetworks ................................................................................................................................ 95
4.12.1 Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 96
4.12.2 Weakness............................................................................................................................ 97
4.12.3 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 97
4.12.4 Threats ................................................................................................................................ 97
4.13 Level 3 Communications Inc ....................................................................................................... 97
4.13.1 Strengths ............................................................................................................................. 98
4.13.2 Weakness............................................................................................................................ 98
4.13.3 Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 99
4.13.4 Threats ................................................................................................................................ 99
Page | 4

4.14 Limelight Networks ...................................................................................................................... 99

4.14.1 Strengths ........................................................................................................................... 100
4.14.2 Weakness.......................................................................................................................... 100
4.14.3 Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 101
4.14.4 Threats .............................................................................................................................. 101
4.15 Revenue Expectations for CDN Providers ................................................................................ 101
4.16 Threats to CDNs Providers: Google and Amazon .................................................................... 102
4.17 Overall Analysis and Top Ten Comparative Analysis ............................................................... 103
CDN Market Outlook and Forecasts 2014 - 2019 ................................ 107

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
CDN Service Revenues 2014 - 2019 ........................................................................................ 107

CDN Service Revenue by Region: 2014 - 2019 ....................................................................... 109
CDN Video Service Revenue by Region: 2014 - 2019 ............................................................. 109
CDN Other Service Revenue by Region 2014 - 2019 .............................................................. 110
CDN Service Revenue by Category 2014 - 2019 ..................................................................... 110
Overall Trends and Future Outlook for CDN Marketplace ........................................................ 111
Page | 5

List of Figures
Figure 1: CDN Delivers Many Content Types to Many Device Types.......................................................... 13
Figure 2: Content Distribution Schemes ..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: CDN Distributed Servers .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4: CDN Procedures to Retrieve Data. ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 5: CDN Equipment Configuration..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5: Video Suggestions ........................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 7: CDN Revenues 2014 - 2019........................................................................................................ 107
Figure 8: CDN Overall Service Revenue by Region 2014 2019 ................................................. 109
Figure 9: CDN Video Service Revenue by Region 2014 - 2019 ..................................................... 109
Figure 10: CDN Non-video Service Revenue by Region 2014 - 2019........................................... 110
Figure 11: CDN Video Service Revenue by Category 2014 - 2019 ............................................... 110
Page | 6

1
1.1
Introduction
Executive Summary
The user's proximity to your web server has an impact on response times.
Deploying your content across multiple, geographically dispersed servers
will make your pages load faster from the user's perspective. A content
delivery network (CDN) is a system of servers, or computers interconnected
over the Internet, that are placed closer to users across the globe to reduce
the distance content travels.
The digital content market is poised to reach a new stage in its evolution
with the coming pipeline of next generation applications and solutions.
Content consumption among consumers is exploding due to many factors
including higher bandwidth, low cost digital devices, and smart devices
(phones, tablets, and wearable wireless) devices.
CDNs provide solutions for efficiently and effectively managing content of
all types.
Solutions include core services such as aggregation,
management, and distribution of content as well as a variety of value-added

functionality. The market need for CDN solutions correlates directly with
the explosion of broadband networks, smart mobile phones, and related
applications, services and content.
In particular, the convergence of
cellular networks supported by 4G/LTE broadband wireless, and Cloudbased applications, facilitates the need for more intelligent content
solutions.
Today one can view the highlights of Dancing with the Stars, American Idol,
and other reality types of programs; watch your favorite TV program;
Page | 7

download a movie; post videos to many social-networking sites; and, of

course, view hundreds of thousands of videos on YouTube and similar
sites. CDN can assist in delivering new media and new media functions to
any given website. It also can help in the distribution of various types of
Web traffic, ranging from standard Web pages to streaming video and
audio as well as other types of traffic.
CDN operations are performed by independent organizations. The
appropriate use of facilities operated by different vendors requires
knowledge of how content delivery networks operate. There are several
disadvantages and advantages in associated with operating CDN
utilization. We will explain each one of them in the following sections. In
order to understand how CDN exactly works, we need to get a full
understanding of Web architecture and the TCP/IP (Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol) suite. This also needs an understanding of Web
architecture along with the relationship between web clients, servers,
application servers, and back-end databases.
CDN has developed over the years with the advancement of Web
technologies. There are several types of content distribution technologies,
these technologies are operated by the CDN vendors within the Internet
operated by various Internet service providers (ISPs) as a mechanism to
deliver organizations Web-server-based information in a timely and
efficient manner to both actual and potential users located around the
globe.
This report provides an in-depth assessment of the CDN market, including,
market drivers, challenges, value chain analysis, operator and vendor
strategies, and assessment of the industry from 2014 to 2019.
Page | 8

1.2
Topics Covered
The report covers the following topics
Business Case for CDN: An assessment of the business case for

CDNs.
Technology Review: A review of the underlying technology

supporting CDN solutions
Market
Analysis
and
Forecasts:
global
and
regional
assessment of the market size and forecasts for the CDN market
from 2014 till 2019
Industry Value Chain: An analysis of the CDN value chain
Page | 9

1.3
Key Questions Answered
The report provides answers to the following key questions:
What are CDNs
What benefits do CDN bring to Carriers?
How much will the CDN market be worth in 2019?
What will be the regional outlook for revenue in the CDN market?
Want benefits do LTE networks brings to CDN
Googles role in the CDN growth
Which vendors are leading the market and what key strategies for
vendors capitalizing on?
1.4
Target Audience
The report targets the following audience.
Investment Firms
Mobile Network Carriers
Service Bureau Companies
Infrastructure Vendors
Wireless Infrastructure Vendors
Telecom Managed Service Providers
Page | 10

1.5
Companies Mentioned
Accelia
Akamai
Alcatel-Lucent
Amazon CloudFront
BitGravity
BroadMedia
CacheFly
CDNetworks
CloudFlare
EdgeCast
Ericsson
Google
Internap
Level 3 Communications Inc
Limelight Networks
MaxCDN
NaviSite
Nokia Siemens Networks
Solid State Networks
Velocix
Verizon
Page | 11

Content Delivery Networks
In this section we evaluate the technology behind CDN solutions.

In addition to the common technologies and solutions discussed in the
following sections, it is important to note that some CDN providers partner
with other companies to offer special features/functionality not currently
found in all CDNs such as:
Analytics: Cedexis, Gomez, Keynote, Catchpoint
SDN/NFV: Big Switch, Plaribus, Cumulus, Ciena, 6Wind, Avi

Networks
Bare-metal
option: Accton,
Quanta,
Edge-Core,
Aberdeen,
Penguin
2.1
Overview and Common Technology Employed
Content Delivery Networks (CDN) provides better performance and

availability for contents and offloads the traffic served directly from the
content providers origins infrastructure which results in cost saving
(Wikipedia). The exact definition of CDN is that it represents a group of
geographically dispersed servers deployed to facilitate the distribution of
information generated by Web publishers in a timely and efficient manner.
The growth of Smartphones has added more data load on the internet and
wireless networks.
This growth has added more loads on the servers capacity. A CDN is a
group of servers that facilitate the distribution of information generated by
Web publishers in a timely and efficient manner. The CDN plays an
important role in the delivery of content to mobile devices and internet-
Page | 12

enabled devices. CDN servers must be located closer to the ultimate

consumer or potential client operator than the server operated by the Web
publisher to accomplish the best performance.
CDN refers to many distributed servers deployed in many data centers all
over the web. The term is short for Content Distribution Network, and it is
also interchangeably refers to the term Content Delivery Network. Basically,
it denotes various servers deployed and distributed over large distances,
forming huge data centers. Typically, all servers on the CDN network are
connected across the internet in order to deliver all sorts of digital contents
to end user over the web.
Figure 1: CDN Delivers Many Content Types to Many Device Types
Page | 13

One key-advantage of CDN is that it merely delivers contents with high

availability and very high performance to end users. Content like graphics,
live streaming media, web stored files and social network databases are
made available to users anytime anywhere. Availability issues are basically
related to attacks that target denial of the service. Thanks to the large
number of the distributed high-performance servers, the data centers will be
able to absorb any sort of such attacks.
Figure 2: Content Distribution Schemes
Another advantage CDN offers is that it helps to offload bandwidth traffic

associated with delivering the content from one source (usually the content
providers origin network). As the name suggests, all the digital contents are
stored and delivered from multiple places all over the world. Therefore, the
bandwidth rate shall never encounter any traffic peaks that require
Page | 14

upgrading the bandwidth (as in the case of providing the contents directly).
The last figure depicts how the CDN employs the edge servers to offload
the origin server.
In addition, since distributed servers will be used to host data far from the
content provider original network, the CDN will offer a noticeable protection
for the content provider network and save a lot of resources. As the content
provider business tends to grow, the company will take advantage of the
CDN to avoid continuous upgrade of the infrastructure. Thus CAPEX is
dramatically reduced.
CDN technology also adds another advantage to the content provider over
the web. The distributed servers can be simply viewed as data redundant
storage. The data redundancy allows for a graceful degradation in case of
the content has been lost or corrupted from one segment in the network.
For instance, if a hacker attacks the source of the data causing the data to
be lost or damaged one segment only can be affected, thus the content can
be easily restored from any other segment in the network.
Generally, there are a lot of vendors that build and operate these types of
networks. All CDN operators tend to achieve revenue through charging
content providers for digital content hosted and delivered to end users.
CDN operators provide infrastructure for all possible Internet service
providers in order to take advantage of their facilities to host CDN servers.
Over the past few years, CDN were used to be built and managed
completely under the CDN operator that owns the servers. However, more
recently CDNs are moving toward the peer-to-peer (P2P) technology. This
means that the content will be distributed over a huge number of machines
Page | 15

owned by users all over the world rather than the CDN servers. The content
will be available to any user that runs P2P client software over the internet.
Additionally, another approach to form a CDN is the hybrid model. The
hybrid model will simply utilize both network types. For instance, the CDN
operator will host some servers dedicated to the services and employ user
owned terminals to serve as peers to the content. Further description to
these trends will be introduced in the next few chapters.
2.2 CDN Technology and Functionality

The CDN theory of operation is much similar to the traditional web access.
Yet the CDN relies on some concepts that make it a little different than the
other web services. As previously stated, the target of the CDN operator is
to distribute data in order to improve access. Access issues include many
aspects rather than the content availability. Absolutely, access speed is a
key parameter that affects the users satisfaction about a service.
CDN technologies have emerged as a promising solution to this problem
simply by bringing the data closer to the user. So how is that? Well, the
answer is simple: CDN providers will typically place a group of servers in
some strategic geographical locations across the globe. These servers will
host a copy of the content provider content to serve relatively nearby users.
For example, as depicted in the last instance, users in US will gain access
to the content from a relatively nearby server (possibly the CDN will deploy
a set of servers across the states and the user will be directed to the
nearest server to his state).
Page | 16

Figure 3: CDN Distributed Servers
2.2.1
Domain Name System (DNS)
In order to make this simple technique possible, the DNS service is typically
used. DNS stands for Domain Name System which is defined according to
Wikipedia as a hierarchical distributed naming system for computers,
services, or any resource connected to the Internet or a private network.
The DNS simply associates and stores many information about a computer
or any network resource or domain. All these information are retrieved from
the DNS server along with the domain name translation to the original
numerical form of IP address. The IP address and the stored information
will be used to locate the network resource all over the globe (commonly
DNS also serve the local network intranet as well as internet).
Page | 17

Therefore retrieving this information must be prior to any network access

operation. The DNS request is the first step performed by a browser to
access a web page. To understand this, one can imagine the phonebook as
a close example, when the user wants to reach a contact he must login to
the phonebook to retrieve the contact number prior to dialing it. Yet, this is
considered too generic description for the DNS service and it typically relies
on much more complex technicalities, however most of these technicalities
are far beyond the scope of this report.
Unlike the classic DNS service, CDN servers may have more than one IP
address. These addresses define servers where other mirrors of the data
exist (usually known as Edge servers). Additionally, the CDN DNS will
make further investigation about the incoming requests to locate set servers
that will serve it best. This process will end up by returning an IP address of
the nearest edge server.
Yet nearest doesnt typically mean that the user will have access to the
server that is close the request location, actually nearest shall refer to the
DNS server that handle the request. For instance, if the user makes a
request from a location that already have an edge server, and directed to a
DNS that is located in a far distance; the returned address will point to the
nearest location related to the DNS location.
Another option that offers the content provider a precious advantage is the
ability to configure the DNS to a set of preferences. These preferences may
dictate what basis will determine the best edge server. For instance, the
company may configure the DNS to orchestrate the DNS resolution based
on the usage capacity of the edge servers. Thus instead of directing the
Page | 18

user to a physically close server that suffer from over overloading, the DNS
will look up for the next close and less loaded server.
2.2.2
Accessing Content
In order to access the data on the edge server, the request will maintain a
cache similar to web browser cache. The reason for this is that the server
must ensure that the data exist and not expired in faster ways. For
instance, when the edge server receives a request, it matches the request
cache key with the server cache to make sure that the content exits.
Simply, if the cache is correctly matched the content will be served directly
to the user. Otherwise, if the content cache has expired or doesnt exist in
the edge server, it will be requested from the origin since it is the source of
all data. In this case the data will be received from the origin and stored to
the edge server then served to the user. Additionally, the server will store
the data in its cache header in order to directly serve it to user in the future
(until the cache expires or the data is deleted).
Page | 19

Figure 4: CDN Procedures to Retrieve Data.

(Source: nczonline.net)
The last figure shows how content is retrieved from the CDN. In the first
case the content doesnt exist in the edge server, thus retrieved directly
from the origin and stored to server cache and delivered to user. In the
second case, the content already exists within the cache consequently it is
delivered to the user.
The CDN typically uses load balancing servers and traffic switches to share
traffic among the CDN servers. These traffic servers are also known as
content switch. It will be used to direct request to one of the attached cache
Page | 20

server. Advantages of sharing the traffic will include increasing total

capacity, improving scalability, and providing increased reliability.
2.2.3
Apache Traffic Server
Yahoo! uses a CDN in order to provide web content to billions of requests

per day. For instance, the content of the yahoo UI library is served from the
edge servers close to the user that requests the content. Basically, the
request of the UI content contains multiple file names defined by a tool
named combo handler, when the edge server receives the request it either
respond to it directly or request the content from the origin server. The
origin server running the appropriate combo tool will combine files in the
request and the send it back as one file. The apache traffic server from the
acquired company apache is used to manage these requests traffic.
In order to avoid overflow, edge and origin servers with inappropriate
requests the traffic server will serve as an orchestration layer in the
communication process. To handle such traffic the traffic server offers
outstanding performance capabilities. Some key statistics about the apache
TS state that Yahoo sites require around 30 billion object per day, and the
handled requests benchmark was 200,000 requests per second. Also at the
2009 Cloud Computing Expo Yahoos TS team announced that the TS
used in yahoo production handles 400TB traffic per day.
To understand the content access methodology of the CDN, one must be
aware of typical cases where the CDN doesnt likely work. As described
earlier, the edge server acts as a content delivery, yet it is typical different
from the FTP servers. How is that? Well, the FTP repositories are where
Page | 21

users simply upload and download files (which are referred to as static files
and it will be discussed pretty soon). Unlike those FTP servers, edge
servers act as a proxy, since the edge server will only carry requests to
the origin (that typically knows and instructs what content should be
delivered) and the respond back to the user. This why in the last scenario
yahoo combo handlers lie on the origin.
Furthermore, the CDN works commonly with static type content and this is
for a good reason. Static content denotes all sorts of media and supporting
files for web pages this may include JavaScript, CSS, images, Flash, audio,
and video. Static means that the content doesnt frequently change. The
reason that lies behind this limitation is that the CDN acts upon on cache
basis. Therefore if the content frequently change the cache will expire and
every time a change occur the data subsequently will be retrieved from the
origin directly making a useless case of the CDN.
Moreover, huge numbers of CDN users shall gain benefit from these static
files. In case of dynamic pages, contents are customized per user; caching
these customized contents to an edge server will possibly result to
redundancy and waste of resources. Additionally, the cache in case of
dynamic content will be required to update itself as many times as the
content changes. For instance, customized home pages are considered a
poor candidate for CDN.
2.2.4
Cache Expiration
Expiration of the cache is pretty important to empty space for other files that
are frequently used (some cached files may remain unused for a very long
time in the edge server thus wasting space). In order to overcome this issue
expiry headers are added to the cache, allowing the CDN to achieve
Page | 22

optimum use of resources. Yet the static assets must remain available at
the CDN for maximum possible time to avoid overloading the origin itself
(as long as the content doesnt change). Therefore, the cache of such static
content should have far-future expire headers.
Also, doing so will allow the browser to cache the static resources for longer
period. This means the file may be cached in at least two distinct places.
Therefore, strict naming conventions must be followed in order to alert
caching repositories of a newer version of the cached content. This
technique shall allow the user to receive most up to date versions of the
content, while maintaining far-future cache expiry.
2.2.5
Content Service Protocols
There are many protocols used by CDN to deliver the content across the
web. One basic protocol suit is the Internet Content Adaption Protocol
(ICAP). It was developed in 1990s. Another protocol is the Open Pluggable
Edge Service (OPES) protocol, and the Edge Side Includes (ESI). The ESI
protocol is pretty important protocol made originally to support the edge
level of the dynamic web content assembly. It is considered a promising
solution to the caching issue of the dynamic content which was illustrated
earlier.
2.2.6
CDN Architecture
CDNs can be architected in either an Overlay or Network approach. With

the former, application-specific servers and caches handle the distribution
of specific content types at several places in the network, while the latter
approach, network components (routers, switches, etc.) are equipped with
Page | 23

code for identifying specific application types and handling traffic based on
predetermined policies (QoS, SLA, etc.)
2.2.7
Architecturally
Server Types
speaking,
servers
classifications: Origin and Replica.
used
by
CDNs
are
two
main
The Origin server is the definitive
version of the content and is updated by the content provider. A Replica

server stores a copy of the content but is designed to act as an authoritative
reference for client responses. The two server types work closely together
as The Origin server communicates with the distributed Replica servers to
update the content stored in it.
Functionally speaking, there are various sever roles including:
Media server: Serves any digital and encoded content, responding

to queries with specific content (images, video, audio, etc.).
Web server: contains the links to the streaming media as well as

other Web-based content.
Cache server: Makes copies (caches) of content at the edge of the

network in order to bypass the need of accessing Origin server to
satisfy every content request.
2.2.8
CDN Network Components
CDN hardware consists of routers, servers and other equipment provided

from leading computing companies such as Dell, Cisco, and others.
Page | 24

At their core, CDN hardware requirements are much like any Cloud
implementation including the need for content routers, servers, firewalls,
and supporting equipment.
Equipment is required for the following
purposes:
Content Routing
Content Switching
Content Edge Delivery
Content Distribution and Management
Thanks to advances in virtualization and Cloud-based deployments, many

CDN deployments can run on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware
with virtual machines (VMs), thereby reducing costs and improving
infrastructure flexibility.
Page | 25

Below is a typical configuration based various storage options from Cisco:
Cisco
SA-7
and
Cisco
SA-14
Cisco CE510
Cisco CE565
Cisco CE7305
Cisco CE7325
CPU
One 1.7
GHz Intel
Pentium 4
processor
with 128
KB Layer 2
cache
One 1.7
GHz Intel
Pentium 4
processor
with 128
KB Layer 2
cache
One 2.4
GHz Intel
Pentium 4
Prestonia
processor
with 512
KB Layer 2
cache
Two 2.4
GHz Intel
Pentium 4
Prestonia
processors
with 512
KB Layer 2
cache
System
Bus
400 MHz
system bus
(100 MHz
Front Side
Bus [FSB]
at four data
transfers
per cycle)
400 MHz
system bus
(100 MHz
FSB at four
data
transfers
per cycle)
400 MHz
system bus
(100 MHz
FSB at four
data
transfers
per cycle)
400 MHz
system bus
(100 MHz
FSB at four
data
transfers
per cycle)
Synchron 512 MB
ous
DRAM
(SDRA
M)
1 GB
2 GB
4 GB
Maximu 80 GB
m
System IDE
Storage
(with
Storage
Array if
396 GB
936 GB
936 GB
252 or
504 GB
Ultra2 SCSI Ultra2 SCSI Ultra2 SCSI

Ultra2
SCSI
Page | 26

Applicab
le)
Baseline 40 GB
Internal
Storage IDE
72 GB
144 GB
432 GB
252 or
504GB

Ultra2
SCSI
Maximu 80 GB
m
Internal IDE
Storage
72 GB
External No
Storage
Array
Support
Yes
432 GB
432 GB
252 or
504 GB

Ultra2
SCSI
Yes
Yes
Network Two
Two
Two
Two
Interface 10/100/100 10/100/100 10/100/100 10/100/100
s
0BASE-T 0BASE-T 0BASE-T 0BASE-T
Flash
128MB
Memory
128MB
128MB
MPEG
Yes
Yes
No
Decoder
(Option) MPEG-1, 2 MPEG-1, 2
DB-15
audio
connector
DB-15
audio
connector
BNC
composite
video
output
BNC
composite
video
output
128MB
No
Page | 27

7-pin DIN
S-video
output
7-pin DIN
S-video
output
Bus type:
fiber-optic
media
(short-wave
50 micron)
Bus type:
fiber-optic
media
(short-wave
50 micron)
Bus type:
fiber-optic
media
(short-wave
50 micron)
Bus type:
fiber-optic
media
(short-wave
50 micron)
Bus transfer
rate: 200
Mbps
maximum
at half
duplex and
400 Mbps
at full
duplex
Bus transfer
rate: 200
Mbps
maximum
at half
duplex and
400 Mbps
at full
duplex
Bus transfer
rate: 200
Mbps
maximum
at half
duplex and
400 Mbps
at full
duplex
Bus transfer
rate: 200
Mbps
maximum
at half
duplex and
400 Mbps
at full
duplex
Power
200W AC
200W AC
Hotswappable
redundant
AC (DC
available
mid-2003)
Hotswappable
redundant
AC (DC
available
mid-2003)
AC (DC
availabl
e mid2003)
Rack
Units
1RU
1RU
2 RU
2 RU
3 RU
One serial
port
One serial
port
One serial
port
One
Ultra160
SCSI port
(dualchannel
integrated
One
Ultra320
SCSI port
(dualchannel
integrated
One
Ultra320
SCSI port
(dualchannel
integrated
One
Ultra160
SCSI
port
(dualchannel
integrate
d
controlle
Fibre
Channel
Adapter
(Optional
)
External One serial

Connecto port
rs
Page | 28

Availabl
e PCI
Expansio
n Slots
One
66/100/133MHz 64-bit
PCI-X slot
on the
system
board
controller)
controller)
controller)
r)
One
66/100/133MHz 64-bit
PCI-X slot
on the
system
board
Two 133MHz 64-bit

PCI-X not
hotpluggable
Two 133MHz 64-bit

PCI-X not
hotpluggable
and
and
Two 100MHz 64-bit

PCI-X not
hotpluggable
(low
profile)
Two 100MHz 64-bit

PCI-X not
hotpluggable
(low
profile)
One 33MHz 32-bit

PCI not hotpluggable
One 33MHz 32-bit

PCI not hotpluggable
3.36 in.
(85.4 mm)
Height
1.72 in.
(43.7 mm)
1.72 in.
(43.7 mm)
3.36 in.
(85.4 mm)
5.0 in.
(127.5
mm)
Width
17.3 in.
(440 mm)
17.3 in.
(440 mm)
17.46 in.
17.46 in.
17.5 in.
(443.5 mm) (443.5 mm) (444
mm)
Depth
16.75 in.
16.75 in.
27.48 in.
27.48 in.
20.4 in.
(425.5 mm) (425.5 mm) (698.0 mm) (698.0 mm) (519
mm)
Weight
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum 76 lb

weight: 28 weight: 28 weight: 62 weight: 62 (34.5
lb (12.7 kg) lb (12.7 kg) lb (28.1 kg) lb (28.1 kg) kg)
Power
Page | 29

Universa Input
l Input
voltage low
range 100127 VAC
Input
voltage
high range
200-240
VAC
Input
voltage low
range 100127 VAC
Input
voltage low
range 100127 VAC
Input
voltage low
range 100127 VAC
Input
voltage
high range
200-240
VAC
Input
voltage
high range
180-265
VAC
Input
voltage
high range
180-265
VAC
Input
voltage
low
range
90-136
VAC
Input
voltage
high
range
198-257
VAC
Maximu 200W
200W
200W
200W
m Power (115 to 230 (115 to 230 (115 to 230 (115 to 230
VAC)
VAC)
VAC)
VAC)
Operating Environment
Operatio 50 to 95F 50 to 95F 50 to 95F 50 to 95F
nal
(10 to 35C) (10 to 35C) (10 to 35C) (10 to 35C)
Temperat
ure
50 to
95F
(10 to
35C)
Nonoper
ational
Temperat
ure
-40 to
140F
(-40 to
60C)
-40 to
140F
(-40 to
60C)
-40 to
140F
(-40 to
60C)
-40 to
140F
(-40 to
60C)
-40 to
140F
(-40 to
60C)
Humidity Nonoperati Nonoperati Nonoperati Nonoperati Nonoper

ng: 8 to
ng: 8 to
ng: 8 to
ng: 8 to
ating:
80%
80%
80%
80%
8 to
80%
Altitude
Maximum
altitude:
2133 m
(7000 ft)
Maximum
altitude:
2133 m
(7000 ft)
Maximum
altitude:
2133 m
(7000 ft)
Maximum
altitude:
2133 m
(7000 ft)
Maximu
m
altitude:
2133 m
(7000 ft)
Page | 30

Complia CE marking CE marking CE marking CE marking CE

nce
marking
Safety
UL 1950
UL 1950
UL 1950
UL 1950
UL 1950
CSA-C22.2 CSA-C22.2 CSA-C22.2 CSA-C22.2 CSANo. 950

No. 950
No. 950
No. 950
C22.2
No. 950
EN 60950 EN 60950 EN 60950 EN 60950
EN
IEC 60950 IEC 60950 IEC 60950 IEC 60950 60950
IEC
60950
EMC
FCC Part
FCC Part
FCC Part
FCC Part
FCC
15 (CFR
15 (CFR
15 (CFR
15 (CFR
Part 15
47) Class A 47) Class A 47) Class A 47) Class A (CFR
47)
ICES-003 ICES-003 ICES-003 ICES-003 Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
ICESEN 55022 EN 55022 EN 55022 EN 55022 003
Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
with UTP
with UTP
with UTP
with UTP
cables
cables
cables
cables
EN
55022
Class A
CISPR22
CISPR22
CISPR22
CISPR22
Class A
Class A
Class A
Class A
with UTP
with UTP
with UTP
with UTP
VCCI
cables
cables
cables
cables
Class A
ASNZ 3548
Class A
with UTP
cables
ASNZ 3548
Class A
with UTP
cables
ASNZ 3548
Class A
with UTP
cables
ASNZ 3548
Class A
with UTP
cables
VCCI Class VCCI Class VCCI Class VCCI Class
Page | 31

A with UTP A with UTP A with UTP A with UTP

cables
cables
cables
cables
EN 55024
EN 55024
EN 55024
EN 55024
EN 50082-1 EN 50082-1 EN 50082-1 EN 50082-1
Figure 5: CDN Equipment Configuration

Source: Cisco
2.3 CDN Benefits

There are several advantages associated with CDN. One of the most
important benefits in the CDN is that it makes multiple copies of the content
of a Web publisher and distributing that content across the internet and it
removes the necessity of customer requests traversing a large number of
routers to directly access the facilities of the Web publisher. This reduces
the traffic routed through the internet along with the delays associated with
Page | 32

the routing of traffic. This means that the latency between the server and
the client will be reduced thanks to the CDN.
When latency is being reduced, this means the delivery of real-time video to
clients will be much better and faster. When we watch video on the internet
we can see the video buffering from time to time. This happens because
the delay resulting from buffering permits a relatively smooth delivery to
occur. With most of the content on the internet became free now more data
usage has been consumed. Videos become distributed all over the Internet
even in the little ads on the side of any Web page.
When someone goes to YouTube, or any video streaming website, and
watch a video he/she will find other videos suggestions on the side of the
page as illustrated in the following figure:
Page | 33

Figure 6: Video Suggestions
Some other videos show as an advertisements in the suggestions column.

From this screen, you can view other videos, which can result in a large
amount of traffic being directed toward your computer.
If the user is accessing a Web page that does not use the CDN, then the
user will be obtaining a data stream from the server to the client that could
be far away from the user. This will result in huge delay and buffering in the
video stream. If the Web page is using CDN organization to flow their data
then the request for viewing the video might only travel to a near by server,
where the video would flow directly to the users computer resulting in fast
streaming. As we can see from the above that CDN has a lot of good
Page | 34

benefits for both consumer and service provider. Also CDN can reduce the
latency in streaming videos and improve the performance of the Web
pages.
Also there are some disadvantages of the CDN, as the internet is a global
network most Web publishers get visitors from all around the world. This
means that all organizations must maintain duplicate servers strategically
located around the world.
Thus most, if not all, organizations with a large Web presence need to rely
upon third-party CDN operators that have globally distributed in-place
networking equipment whose facilities are connected to the Internet.
Because most organizations need to use a third party, this results in those
disadvantages associated with the use of any third-party technology
provider, including cost and support as well as the need to ensure that the
CDN provider can update the Web publishers server changes in a timely
manner throughout the content delivery network operated by the third party.
Also, a Web publisher must make sure that the CDN provider he is dealing
with has a near location where he gets most of the users. For example,
persons accessing Yahoo News might be expected to primarily reside in
the eastern United States, while the online readership of the MSN news
might be primarily in the northwestern United States. Thus, one website
would more than likely have a significantly different requirement for the
characteristics of a CDN than the other website.
2.3.1
CDN Market Drivers
Page | 35

CDNs are engineered and optimized for delivering streaming audio, video,
and Internet television (IPTV) programming, although an Internet service
provider (ISP) may also use one to deliver static or dynamic Web pages.
The market drivers for CDNs are therefore due to the need largely to the
needs of data-intensive applications such as video surveillance, HD
movies, interactive gaming, and other forms of entertainment.
However, it is important to note that the market drivers for CDNs include a
variety of
different
needs for Internet related activities
including
downloadable objects (media files, software, documents), applications (ecommerce, portals), live streaming media, on-demand streaming media,
and social networks. Emerging market drivers for CDN include enhanced
corporate communications, e-learning solutions, and next generation pointof-sale kiosks and video displays.
While there are a variety of ways in which these market driver demands
may be met, CDNs have evolved to represent an optimal choice. CDNs
also offload the traffic served directly from the content provider's origin
infrastructure, resulting in cost savings for the content provider.
CDNs
provide the content provider a degree of protection from DoS attacks by

using their large distributed server infrastructure to absorb the attack traffic.
2.3.2
Companies Purchasing CDN Services
Page | 36

As we mentioned earlier, there are a variety of different needs that CDNs

meet including Internet related activities including downloadable objects
(media files, software, documents), applications (e-commerce, portals), live
streaming media, on-demand streaming media, and social networks.
If we were to list all of the companies using CDN services, it would be a
long list.
There are almost as many types of CDN users as there are types of CDN
providers.
CDN users include content exchange, media portals, social
networks, TV networks, gaming networks, and more.

The types of CDN providers (specialization/focus) include:
Internal use only: Apple, Comcast, Netflix
Content Exchange: MediaSilo, Aframe
Media: Level 3 and Limelight
Cloud Compute: CloudFront, Google, Internap, LeaseWeb
Network Operators: DT, BT, Telstra, Telefonica, Telin, Telecom

Italia, Orange, Bezeq, Netvisor
Global focus: Akamai and EdgeCast
APAC focus: China Unicom, China Telecom, ChinaCache,

ChinaNetCenter, Alibaba CDN
Europe focus: KeyCDN, CDN77, CDNify, Akena, Octoshape,

LeaseWeb, Hibernia, Streamzilla
It is also important to note that some CDNs are focused on direct to

consumer (B2C) while others are more B2B oriented.
Page | 37

2.3.3
Content Rating
Not all content is created equal !! In terms of content rating, it is important

to recognize that there are different content types including static content,
dynamic content, streaming media (audio, on-demand video, and real-time
video), and different content services such as directory service, ecommerce service, and FTP.
By definition, static content that infrequently changes, and perhaps most
importantly, does not change dynamically based on user requests.
In
contrast, dynamic content such as HTML, API, Ajax calls, or anything else
that requires application logic, changed frequently, and therefore causes a
variety of problems including the fact that it is generally considered to be
un-cacheable. Traditional CDNs are unable to cope with the demands of
real-time services, as their infrastructures have been built to cache and
deliver static content only.
The so-called next-generation CDN providers (Instart Logic, Aryaka Net,
Fastly, MaxCDN, Yottaa, MdotCDN, Saguna) have solved the problem of
delivering dynamic content thanks to employing certain technologies that
meet these demand while providing additional benefits such as greater
flexibility and transparency of content delivery and monitoring.
Streaming media may either be live (real-time) or on-demand. Real-time
content is delivered immediately from the encoder to the Media server, and
then onto the media client. In case of on-demand delivery, the content is
encoded and then is stored as streaming media files in the media servers.
Page | 38

Due to the need to manage various network needs including capacity, QoS,
and optimizing asset utilization, content distribution is a very important
aspect of content management and rating.
Selection of content and
delivery is based on the type and frequency of specific user requests. The
simplest and most brute force way to plan and execute content delivery is
full-site content selection and delivery in which the surrogate servers
perform entire replication in order to deliver the total content site to the
end users. The downside is that this method uses an inordinate amount of
resources, which does not scale well as the volume and size of Web
objects ever-increases.
Although economies of scale are also ever-
decreasing the cost of storage, there remains the issue of having sufficient
capacity to store all content. Accordingly, other methods entail partial-site
content selection and delivery, wherein surrogate servers perform partial
replication to deliver only embedded objects.
Page | 39

2.3.4
CDN is not for Content Alone
CDN has improved through the years, as there were many technical
problems with the Web and series of servers has been created by
government agencies and other organizations to overcome these issues.
There were two problems directly related to content networks, both of this
problems was a result from the growth of the number of Web servers in
which the total number of Web pages was increasing at exponential rate.
While search engines such as Yahoo! and Google facilitated the location of
Web-based information, if a person required access to a series of data from
different locations, he or she would need to spend an inordinate amount of
time repeating the Web-page location processes on a daily basis. Another
problem results from the global expansion of the Internet is the global
location of Web Servers. Because a user in the UK require to access to a
server located in the United States, Web queries would need to flow
thousands of miles through a series of routers to reach their destination. As
each query reached the destination server in the US, the computer there
would process the request and return an applicable Web page. That Web
page would flow in a reverse manner to the query, through a series of
routers back to the client.
Each router needs a small period of time to examine the header of each
data packet to determine where to send the packet, network delays are
primarily a result of the number of router hops between source and
destination computers as well as the traffic flowing through the router. Thus,
Page | 40

as the number of hops between client and server increase, so do the

expected delays between the client query and server response.
The question here what CDN deliver other than content? In matter of fact
the huge benefit for CDN is video streaming. To illustrate why is the storage
capacity of a video server is extremely important, lets assume that an
organization is storing How To videos covering fixing a faucet, installing a
light switch, and similar projects.
If the video has a frame rate of 30 frames per second (fps) and if a
resolution of 640 480 pixels is used with a 24-bit color depth, then a 1second display requires the storage and transmission of 30 640 480
24 or approximately 221 million bits, which is almost 28 million bytes. Thus,
a 1-minute video would require the storage and transmission of
approximately 1.68 Giga bytes of data. In a modern video environment
such as the Web, there are several methods that can be used to reduce
both the storage and transmission of video data. The major methods used
to reduce the size of video files include reducing the length of the video;
altering the resolution, frame rate, and color depth of the video; as well as
the use of compression technology.
Obviously, the longer a video, the more storage is required as well as
additional time for its transmission. Thus, one obvious method that can be
used to reduce the data storage and transmission requirements of a video
is to reduce its length. This is why, in a fast-changing world, the on-line
news videos are normally only a few minutes in length. Full-resolution video
dates to the VGA monitor, which had a resolution of 640 480 pixels, or
640 pixel dots across by 480 lines of pixels. Although there have been
significant improvements in the capabilities of adapter cards and monitors
Page | 41

with respect to resolution since the VGA standard was developed, fullresolution video is commonly used today. Other commonly encountered
resolutions include 320 240, in which the width and height are reduced by
a factor of two (which reduces data storage by a factor of four), and 160
120 (which is referred to as quarter-resolution and which reduces the total
amount of data by a factor of 16).
In the movie theater, the frame rate of a film is typically 24 frames per
second. On a TV, due to the refresh rate, images are displayed at a rate of
30 frames per second. A slower frame rate can result in images having a
jumpiness quality. In the distribution of images to computers, the initial use
of video occurred at frame rates as low as 15 and even 10 fps to reduce
data requirements by a factor of two or three. While this was almost a
necessity a decade ago, advances in data storage capacity as well as the
data rate of cable and DSL communications allows a 30-fps rate.
Color depth refers to the number of pixels used to represent the color of
each pixel displayed. The use of black and white requires one bit per pixel,
while what is referred to as true color and full color uses 8 bits each of
red, blue, and green data; requires 24 bits per pixel; and represents the
maximum amount of color the human eye can distinguish. The next-smaller
reduction results in the use of 16 bits, which can represent thousands of
colors and provides a one-third reduction in the quantity of data. Because
video is typically shot using a 24-bit color-depth device, trimming the color
depth from 24 to 16 bits, which is referred to as quantization, can distort
transitions within frames.
Of all the techniques previously mentioned, data compression provides the
largest reduction in the quantity of data used to represent a video. For full-
Page | 42

motion video, there are several data-compression methods that are used. A
few of those compression methods include Windows Media Video (WMV),
which is based upon Microsofts implementation of the Moving Picture
Experts Group (MPEG) 4, Part 2; and Adobes Flash Video, which in
versions 6 and 7 used the Sorenson Spark, a codec (coder-decoder) for
FLV files, while Flash Player 8 and newer revisions now support the use of
ON2 Technologies VP6 compression as well as various versions of MPEG.
While each version of data compression performs differently with respect to
its support of low-, medium-, and high-bit-rate transfers and compression
efficiency, in common, they all considerably reduce the size of data storage
requirements as well as data transmission time. However, to effectively
view a video, the client must have either a compatible browser or a
compatible plug-in in the browser.
2.4 CDN Ecosystem

As we have discussed, CDN is similar to network architectures that are
developed to expedite the flow of data, with the use of servers resulting in
an architecture developed to facilitate processing. What we have currently
is a PC networks that based upon the use of file servers which provide the
clients with the ability to access and share files online. This works by
making the file server responds to a client request by downloading a
complete file, the servers ability to support many simultaneous users was
limited. This limitation still exists today with Web servers and has been
exploited through the use of denial of service (DOS) attacks, in which the
nature of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and its three-way
Page | 43

handshake permits a DOS attack to occur. In addition to being subjected to

potential attacks, network traffic occurring as a result of many file transfers
could significantly affect communications.
There are some limitations associated with file sharing which results of the
use of database servers. Employing a relational database management
system (DBMS), client queries were directly answered, considerably
reducing network traffic in comparison to the use of networks when a total
file-transfer activity occurred. Thus, the modern client-server architecture in
many organizations results from the use of a database server instead of a
file server.
The CDN ecosystem contains the following players:
Content providers, who need to get their content to end-users
Hosting providers, whose Internet-connected data centers house

content providers servers
Backbone carriers, who provide wide-area transport for ISPs
Access ISPs, who connect end users to the Internet
End users, who are consumers of content
These five groups make up a content distribution value chain, the purpose
of which is to connect consumers to purveyors of content. Note that there is
overlap among access ISPs, backbone carriers and hosting providers.
Some backbone carriers offer access and hosting services, and many
access ISPs offer hosting services.
Each of these providers has a specific role and they complete each others.
There are two business models for CDN. The first is a content provider-
Page | 44

centric model driven by the needs of content owners, and the second is an
Internet access provider-centric model driven by the needs of ISPs.
2.4.1
Revenue Models and Pricing
Revenue models for CDN providers are based on a few factors including
traffic amount, storage, and any additional services provided.
In some
cases, CDN providers require a minimum monthly commitment.

In terms of market share based on revenue, there is clearly a dichotomy of
providers in terms of long-tail providers versus CDN companies that
support large companies that generate a lot of traffic. By way of example,
Akamais 1,000 customers pay roughly $1.5 billion per year vs.
CloudFlares 1.5 million customers who pay roughly $100 million per year.
Not all CDN providers publicly disclose their pricing, making it often difficult
to compare rates across competitors.
A snapshot of some recent posting by a few representative players is as
follows:
MaxCDN: 350TB/month is $.035/GB
Fastly: 350TB/month is $.04/GB and 5PB/month is $.02/GB
Amazon: 350TB/month is $.04/GB and 5PB/month is $.02/GB
Microsoft: 350TB/month is $.04/GB and 5PB/moth is $.025/GB
CDN pricing has become more competitive recently as economies of scale

are improving a highly fragmented industry (too many players) realizes that
increasing volumes drive down incremental pricing.
Page | 45

For larger players that can generate large volumes, or at least commit to
higher volumes, pricing is driving towards $.01/GB on 10PB+/month of data
transfer volume. More typical pricing for lower volumes is more like At
$.04/GB at 350TB/month and $.02/GB at 5PB/month of data transfer
In terms of pricing for CDN storage, have historically been in the range of
$.15/GB to $.75/GB, depending on the volume.
By way of example, it
would be typical for a CDN customer to pay $200/month for 1TB of storage.
A snapshot of some recent CDN storage pricing from some representative
industry players is as follows:
Amazon S3: 1PB x $.0228/GB = $22,800/mo. X 12 months =

$273,600
Azure Storage: 1PB x $.022/GB = $22,000/mo. x 12 months =

$264,000
In terms of looking at storage costs as a block of data stored, the estimated

prices for 1PB of Disk Array Storage for a few options are as follows:
EMC Isilon: $400k to $500k
Data Direct Networks: $400k to $500k
Custom Storage: $350k to $375k
CDN storage is increasingly becoming a commodity as it is table-stakes

for most companies that prefer to differentiate based on service, application
add-ons, and various premium feature/functionality selling premium
features at premium prices, where the latest features incorporate big data,
Page | 46

virtualization, wireless last mile acceleration technology, enhanced security

services and SDN.
However, there are even premium storage options such as Amazons S3
(Simple Storage Service) option, which represents an online file storage
option that is very high speed and scalable. Other options include Isilon
and Data Direct Networks (DDN) that are believed to be even faster, more
stable, and proven, compared to S3.
2.4.2
Carrier Role
There is a huge opportunity for carriers to connect all their CDNs together.
This will results in one federating Content Delivery Network. Lately
operators started to take serious actions towards this concept. They have
created a new cooperation called Operator Carrier Exchange. The idea of
the OCX is for carriers and telecoms to share ideas, come up with some
CDN standards and allow one another to connect their CDN networks.
The whole idea from this cooperation is to take control of delivering video
across the carriers own network. As carriers are the last mile and all, its
the best for them to take control of the video delivery networks. There are
several carriers in the world which is trying to build their own CDNs. BT,
France Telecom, Telstra, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, KPN, TeliaSonera,
Polska Telekom, Bell and others are all starting to spending some serious
CAPEX on their CDN initiatives and others like Verizon are already far
along.
Page | 47

As the CDN market was relatively small five years ago, carriers werent
interested to build their own CDN. With the introduction of 3G and LTE
video delivery increased dramatically. Carriers used to partner and resell
solutions from the traditional CDNs and spent very little money on any kind
of On-net build-out. The OCX will put forth in terms of how their federated
CDN model works is still not known. One model could be where the carrier
has a direct relationship with the content owner and then uses the
exchange to get access to many other CDNs and a wider footprint. Another
model could be where one carrier or a group of carriers act as a broker for
the CDN services of every company in the exchange. However the
exchange works, carriers will obviously have to have some kind of bilateral
agreements with each other and there are many different kinds of
interconnection models that could potentially work.
This all is easy to implement on paper, but when it comes to the actual work
it will take time and more CAPEX. The CDN market will be growing in the
Long run. In the short-term, operators will not be able to compete with the
tradition CDN providers. There are several reasons that support the
previous statement. For instance, the introduction of the LTE will increase
the demand for video delivering and content delivery as well. Also the
network operators are the last mile in the delivery of content, which means
is that it makes a lot of sense for them to create their own CDNs.
With both IPDC and MBMS this should not be an issue, as all the parties
engaged will benefit once the system is implemented and the services
launched. Services such as mobile TV, which here will be treated as a
model service, offer attractive market opportunities for all especially for the
m-commerce industry. But to make it possible, the telecommunications,
Page | 48

media and broadcasting industries need to cooperate, exploiting each

others core competencies. The main actors involved in implementing IP
Datacast services include cellular network operators, broadcast network
operators, and media companies.
In the case of MBMS the list is shorter and lacks the broadcast network
operators. Of course, we must not forget about the vendors, who will supply
the handsets capable of handling the services and other networking
equipment, building up the network infrastructure, like for instance, iPhone
does not support flash player which is a major issue in video advertising in
mobile phones. In addition to this, there are also the software vendors. After
all, no hardware can operate without operating systems and no services
can be accessed without appropriate applications.
Page | 49

3 CDN APPLICATIONS
3.1 Current Applications
There are several applications for the CDN; video, Small objects,
Application delivery, Software downloads and Ecommerce. Each one of
them represents a specific task to the CDN as a whole
3.1.1
Video Delivery Networks
Video CDN market revenues equaled $545.5 million in 2010, reflecting a

base year growth rate of 21.3%. 2009-2010 was a challenging period for
the total CDN market. Video delivery network is one of the most important
parts of the CDN applications. It is accountable for more than 40 percent of
the CDN market worldwide. There are several OTT providers for VDN, such
as:
Hulu
YouTube
DailyMotion
They cache videos on their servers so the user can access the videos
faster.
3.1.2
Application Delivery Networks (AND)
Page | 50

The key trends driving business today centralization, mobilization and

globalization often make it difficult, if not downright impossible, to support
on-demand application delivery. IT initiatives such as server consolidation
and voice, video and data convergence can disrupt network service. Your
mobile applications and devices can be compromised by security breaches
and data theft. And global IT infrastructures often harbor data silos that are
difficult to penetrate and manage, obscuring the view of your IT resources.
Application delivery networks provide a faster access to application whether
on a PC or mobile devices. It can be used in E-commerce and Mcommerce applications.
3.1.3
Future Applications
The future of CDN application looks very promising and there are yet new
applications to be developed. Mind Commerce expects that the future for
CDN applications will be focusing more on mobile applications. This is due
to the expansion in telecommunication service along with the introduction of
LTE and other high speed service. Also the introduction of the PC tablets
and wearable devices will help in this expansion.
Mobile content tends to load so slowly on mobile devices and is so often
interrupted by the spinning wheel and plagued by slow response times.
This means that the direction of the CDN will be moving towards mobile
content; Mind Commerce expects that mobile content will be the heart of
the CDN in the next few years.
Page | 51

3.1.4
Mobile CDN
Anytime and anyplace availability of pervasive services is provided by

modern mobile devices due to their increasingly expanding coverage areas
and a growing availability of high-speed data services. Earliest attempt to
bring data connectivity to mobile devices were implemented by NTT
DoCoMos i-mode framework and the General Packet Radio Service
(GPRS), both of which brought revolutionary advances in the availability of
a wide range of online services to the users of mobile devices.
Unfortunately, these early attempts suffered from significantly low speeds
(comparable to those of dialup modems), which hindered the rollout of dataintensive applications such as web browsing and over-the-air audio and
video downloads. Today, however, third and fourth Generations are
becoming increasingly available and have achieved a level coverage
reaching about 60 to 80 percent of subscribers in many European counties.
It is worth noting that the rollout of 3G networks and services in the US is
significantly slower. With anyplace anytime connectivity provided by their
mobile devices, users should be able to tap into m-commerce services that
are available to them at any place and at any time. Many of the mcommerce merchants and service providers simply adjusted their ecommerce business models to the mobile market. For example, eBay, the
world leading online auction provider, was among the first e-commerce web
sites to create a presence on the mobile market.
Today, there are many m-commerce services that are enabled by certain
unique features of the mobile medium. For example, Verizon Wireless
offers a Song ID service on its V CAST handsets, which allows mobile
Page | 52

users to identify a song by recording a fragment they might hear some

place. While the identification service is free on the compatible handsets, it
creates additional sources of revenue due to the increases in the user data
traffic and additional selling opportunities when the users are offered to
purchase matching ringtones or music tracks. Mobile commerce, as a
natural evolution of electronic commerce, uses mobile devices and their
network connectivity to buy, sell, and promote goods, information, and
services. Today, there is shift in focus from mere supporting and enabling
transactions to the exploiting of enhanced information services available on
mobile devices. M-commerce broadens the conventional scope and nature
of electronic commerce by incorporating unique features that mobile
devices provide to their users mobility of participation and portability of
technology.
Mobile and smart phones present a unique tri-fold combination of
capabilities that make them uniquely positioned to advance and create new
and often unexpected m-commerce applications. These capabilities are: a
communications channel, a context sensor, and a pervasive interface
enabler. Providers of m-commerce services have already discovered that in
order to be successful in a highly competitive area, they need to follow
three basic principles:
To be connected to their customers anyplace and anytime
To be aware of the customers context their activities,

surroundings, location, etc.
To be proactive making their services tailored to the needs and

context of each individual customer.
Page | 53

In general, mobile environment can be characterized by its spatiality,

temporality and contextuality. The first two attributes are parallel to the
anyplace and anytime availability of network connectivity and information
services. Contextuality refers to the way that the owners use their mobile
devices while being surrounded by other people, devices, and systems.
Context-aware applications take advantage of this property; they use
information about the current context to support the decision-making
process as a part of improving the quality of the users experience. A typical
context-aware application is able to sense and collect information about
different aspects of the users surroundings, the information about the
present and past behavior of the user, and adjust its functionality to better
respond to the needs of the user in the current situation. Contextawareness is a growing research area and there is no commonly accepted
and universal definition of context.
However, most research sources agree that context refers to the
information about who you are, where you are, who you are with, and what
resources are nearby. In mobile commerce, context information is typically
used to reduce the information overload and improve content management
by adapting the service, information, and product offerings to the needs of
each user in their current situation. Information overload becomes a critical
factor in the framework of the limited resources of mobile devices. Mediarich pages of typical e-commerce portals need to be adapted to small
screens of mobile devices and their limited bandwidth. Information on the
screen of a mobile device needs to be organized so that it is uncluttered
and clearly conveys the most important aspects of the content. Unlike
desktop users, mobile users usually have a very limited attention span and
any m-commerce service provider will need to compete for the attention of
Page | 54

a mobile user with other people, physical advertisements, and other

ambient features of the environment.
Current trends in m-commerce go beyond simply using mobile devices as
mere
facilitators
of
commercial
transactions.
Instead,
through
personalization, mobile devices can be used to enable and enhance the

likelihood of making a connection of the mobile user wishing to make a
purchase and a merchant offering products, services, or information for
sale. Context-awareness provides an excellent foundation for providing
personalized
experiences
in
the
mobile
commerce
environment.
Personalization aims to provide the users with what they need or want
without explicitly having to ask or search; context-awareness provides a
mechanism to implicitly infer the current needs of the user.
The focus on mobility in m-commerce applications naturally leads to new
avenues and opportunities for connecting merchants and providers of
services with their potential customers carrying mobile devices. In a
traditional commerce environment, a customer has to be physically present
at a merchants location to make a purchase; in e-commerce applications, a
transaction can occur only when the customer is at a computer accessing
the web site of the merchant. Mobile commerce breaks the barriers
imposed by the physical location of the merchant or the tethered network
connection of the customers computer. M-commerce naturally lends itself
to create more serendipitous opportunities for commercial transactions.
With anytime availability of online storefronts, mobile customers are able to
access them anywhere using their mobile devices. Today we are beginning
to witness an emergence of pervasive m-commerce services. Currently,
customers can access most modern m-commerce services anywhere and
Page | 55

anytime. However, there is an emergence of context-aware and proactive

services that are able to sense the users current surroundings, observe the
users activity, and are capable of making an unobtrusive suggestion,
whether it is a purchasing opportunity, an interesting place for sightseeing,
or a friend located nearby.
One might say that mobile devices available today are largely deaf, dumb,
and blind in the sense that providers of m-commerce services depend on
the customers to initiate the transactions by visiting a merchants web site,
uploading a photo to be printed, or entering any other information that
would lead to commencing of a commercial transaction. However, more
and more devices come equipped with one or more sensors that enable
these devices to hear and see what is going on around them. The vast
majority of current mobile devices are equipped with cameras capable of
taking still pictures and videos. Until recently, these cameras have not been
used for anything other than for their most immediate purpose. The
possibilities, however, are nearly endless. Camera-equipped mobile
devices can be used for estimating the changes in the users position using
a continuous video feed as barcode scanners for providing real-time
updates to photo albums, photo blogs, and travel diaries for real-time
scanning of small documents.
Built-in GPS sensors provide mobile devices with simple and precise geopositioning capabilities needed to provide the location and position context
features of m-commerce applications. For example, a vehicle equipped with
a navigation system capable of sensing the current level of gasoline could
inform the driver when the vehicle approaches a gas station selling the
preferred brand of fuel. Many practical m-commerce applications enabled
Page | 56

by location context have been described in the literature. For example,

SMMART (System for Mobile Marketing: Adaptive, Personalized and
Targeted) delivers narrowly targeted promotional information to the users of
wireless mobile devices. The system uses location context to deliver
promotions or coupons to the users when they are in a close proximity or
inside a retail site distributing promotions. SMMART also uses other types
of context information; the system adapts to the needs of its user by
unobtrusively monitoring their shopping habits and learning the users
personal preferences.
From the perspective of many m-commerce applications, mobile phones
are often viewed as their owners identity in the sense that each mobile
phone is typically owned by a single person, that person carries the phone
with them most of the time, and that same phone is used by its owner to
conduct all m-commerce transactions. Mobile phones can also be used to
store bank and credit card account numbers, as well as login information for
remote authentication with m-commerce sites. NTT DoCoMo introduced its
FeliCa authentication technology that is used for close proximity
authentication applications; one of the earliest applications of this kind was
using FeliCa-enabled mobile phones as passes in Japanese mass transit
systems. As mobile devices become increasingly associated with their
owners who store their personal and sensitive information on the mobile
phones, the issue of security and privacy becomes ever more important.
Biometric sensors such as retina or fingerprint scanners can be easily used
for identification and authentication of the user and preventing any
unauthorized access to the mobile device. As described above, cameras
built into mobile phones are being used in an increasingly rich array of new
applications. It is just a matter of time until we see new applications that use
Page | 57

mobile phone cameras as retina scanners to identify the rightful owner of

the mobile device. One of the most appealing features of context-aware
systems is the ability of sense surrounding objects. RFID technology
provides a relatively simple solution for implementing this aspect of context
awareness.
Initially, lack of standards led to a certain fragmentation of the market and
resulted in a limited adoption of the RFID technology. However, many early
applications became sustainable, such as the EZ-Pass highway toll system.
Recently adopted standards and drastic reduction of RFID tags and
sensors costs will lead to a wider adoption of this technology in many
areas, including m-commerce applications. RFID seems to be a technology
without limits for the number of areas it can be used in. In recent years, the
amount of RFID tags has increased rapidly. The technology is cheap and
relatively simple. Most RFID systems are used for logistic purposes,
keeping track of products, vehicles and other material. Some are used for
security purposes like anti-theft systems. Tags are also placed in passports,
containing biometric information about the pass holder. The latest trend
within RFID is to use the technology for more advanced applications that
can replace the magnet cards used today for payment and electronic key
cards. The more advanced types of these cards, called proximity cards,
have already been introduced in parts of Asia. The proximity standard was
also modified to allow integration of the technology into cellular phones.
This standard, named Near Field Communication (NFC) can therefore be
used to replace key cards and Visa/MasterCard. At the same time, a small
NFC reader integrated in the phone opens up for many new possibilities.
Switching phone numbers with new people can be done in a quick manner
Page | 58

by simple pressing the two cellular phones against each other. In the same
way, Bluetooth connections can be set up without any manual
configuration. If this idea is accepted by consumers and companies, the cell
phone could be the only device needed when a person leaves the house,
since it in addition to being a phone also is a set of keys, an ID card and a
wallet.
All of this will need a well-managed Mobile CDN. Mobile advertising is
raising the bar for the CDN. Googles assertive mobile advertising strategy
is not occurring in a vacuum. Its success trajectory is challenged by the
threat posed by two other technology behemoths Apple and Facebook.
Before his untimely demise in late 2011, Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced
iAd during the company's iPhone 4.0 media briefing. iAd is a platform that
constitutes Apple's re-imagining of advertising on smartphones. While
Google has extended the keyword advertising model it popularized on the
desktop, Apple's approach is to let iPhone app developers offer ads within
the apps themselves.
Jobs wrote off Google's practice of putting ads in its search results. "When
you look at a mobile device, a phone, it's not like a desktop," Jobs said
during the event. "On the desktop, search is where it's at. That's where the
money is. But on a mobile device, search hasn't happened. Search is not
where it's at; people aren't searching on a mobile device like they do on a
desktop. What's happening is they're spending all of their time in apps." In
Jobs' example, when iPhone users want to find a restaurant, they go to the
Yelp app for the iPhone instead of searching Google. This is anathema to
Google, which sees itself as the gateway to connect users to what they
want to find online.
Page | 59

Jobs noted that the average iPhone user spends 30 minutes using
applications per day, Jobs said Apple could put up an ad every three
minutes. Each iPhone user would glimpse 10 ads within applications per
day, or roughly as much as people might see in a television show. Apple
expects to have 100 million iPhone and iPod touches on the market this
summer, providing 1 billion ad impressions per day for developers who
choose to pair ads with their applications. Apple will give application
developers 60 percent of the sales from the 185,000-plus apps available
through Apple's App Store.
Facebook is poised to enter the mobile advertising race, boosting the social
networking giant's revenue stream in advance of its much-anticipated initial
public offering, Bloomberg reported in October 2011. Citing two sources
with knowledge of Facebook's plans, Bloomberg states Facebook is
expected to roll out mobile ad services by the end of March 2012.
Facebook originally planned to introduce the mobile ad platform earlier this
year and the project could face additional delays, one of the sources adds.
Facebooks advantage is that it reportedly has over 800 million users with
the company expecting to break the billion mark through mobile devices.
According to the site, around 350 million of these users already access
Facebook through mobile devices. Facebooks other advantage is that it
can gather priceless marketing information about its users and their friends,
enabling advertisers to target potential customers more directly than
Google or Apple. Among the proposals under discussion is inserting
Facebook's Sponsored Stories ads-- which spotlight friends' interactions
with brands--directly into the mobile News Feed, which enables users to
view status updates, photos and other content. The addition of Sponsored
Stories has helped Facebook reach what eMarketer estimates will be $3.8
Page | 60

billion in global ad revenue, up from $1.86 billion in 2010. But the format
has also come under legal challenge from users who allege it violates a
California law giving people the right to control how their names and images
are used in endorsements. A federal court judge rejected a Facebook
motion to have the case dismissed.
In late December 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported Facebook is
moving closer to an initial public offering that would value the social
networking giant at more than $100 billion--sources familiar with the matter
say the firm is looking to go public between April and June 2012 and
expects to raise $10 billion. Although Facebook founder and CEO Mark
Zuckerberg has publicly expressed his reluctance to take the company
public, Facebook is currently in internal discussions over the timing of its
Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
In September 2011, Nielsen stated Facebook is now the most popular
mobile app across all operating systems. The ad effort will be modest -"Sponsored Stories" will prominently appear in a Facebook users News
Feed. Until now, Facebook apps on Android and iPhone have been
completely ad-free. Of its 800 million users, 350 million access Facebook
on mobile devices. None of them see ads, and Facebook's clients cannot
reach them on their phones. In Android, Google has provided a vast free
medium for Facebook, and now Facebook intends to sell ads on it. How
long will it be before Google demands a cut of that revenue? Given the
significant size of Facebooks user base an advertising play makes sense
for the company. However, Facebooks ad revenues have been hampered
by marketers belief that the ads are not effective at driving clicks and that
Page | 61

they can engage consumers on Facebook without the need to pay for
advertising.
A mobile advertising play could help Facebook drive further growth from
advertising. The benefit to advertisers in using Facebook could come from
the substantial information the social network has on its users, which could
be used to help advertisers target potential customers. Facebook would
need to tread carefully with how it approaches the use of customer data
because privacy advocates and regulators are keeping a watchful eye on
mobiles data collection practices. Facebook recently revamped its app for
Android to make it quicker and easier to use as it looks to attract more
developers. Meanwhile, Apple originally required marketers to commit to a
spending limit of at least $1 million, but this was later cut down to $500,000.
Also, Apple was charging marketers every time a user tapped an ad, which
would quickly eat through the budget. But Apple is now making some
changes in order to beef up its failing ad service. For starters, it reportedly
plans to drop the spending limit from $500,000 to $400,000. It will also put a
cap on its tap-related charges, where advertisers pay $10 every time an ad
is viewed 1,000 times and only $2 whenever the ad is tapped.
In addition, Apple has created a training program in order to show potential
advertisers what they can get out of participating in the iAd service. OMD,
Apple's media buying agency, has brought its advertising clients to Apple
headquarters in Cupertino, California for a tour where Apple designers offer
information on its products and marketing, complete with a stop in the
Apple store on the way out where companies can buy Apple products at a
discount. Apples pricing model is being reviewed and training is being
introduced for the new medium, says the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile
Page | 62

caps are being introduced to limit the costs for advertisers. Apple charges
$10 per thousand views, but $2 for every click or tap. Google is more
flexible, charging between $4 and $12 per thousand views.
If Facebook embraces mobile ads, it could set off a fascinating corporate
strategy fight with Apple and Google, writes Business Insider. Google is
virtually printing money from mobile ads running on its Android system,
says BI. FB's mobile ad move comes as Apple, in an October stand-off,
blocked Facebook Credits on iPhone and iPad when the social network
refused a 30% cut of those revenues, setting a precedent for standing up to
FB. The Journal also reports that Apple has been inviting and entertaining
senior marketing executives including those from PepsiCo, Clorox and J.C.
Penney, who have paid visits to Apple headquarters.
Facebook confirmed that it was running a test on its ad platform, but the
social network said it was being conducted solely to allow marketers to
indicate that theyre interested in optimizing their campaigns for actions. If
the social network went to a pay-per engagement payment model instead
of the standard pay-per-click system, marketers would likely pay a higher
unit price, but receive a better return on their investments, since they would
only be paying for users who actually engaged with their content. Facebook
already has access to data of a large mobile user base that could help
advertisers more accurately target potential customers than a mobile
browser or app. Facebook says nearly half of its nearly 800 million users
already log in via mobile devices, giving the network momentum in a market
estimated to be worth $630 million.
In mid-2011, Google announced that it has completed the first campaign
that integrates AdMob with its DoubleClick ad server. AdMob ran rich media
Page | 63

ads for Intel, serving 1 million impressions in June. Google reports that 19.5
percent of users who saw the ad engaged with it by tapping on it or visiting
the mobile Web site that it linked to. Google also recently highlighted a
campaign for Lynx Excite, which saw an average engagement of two
minutes, while a recent Campbell's Soup campaign in Apple's mobile iAds
program saw average engagement of nearly one minute.
As Google assertively tests and proves the value of its mobile advertising
products, it is challenged by several industry-wide and company-wide
activities that directly affect its strategic growth opportunities. The Mobile
Marketing Association, for example, is taking another stab at developing
standardized mobile ad formats for the industry a move that will force
Google and others to re-evaluate its offerings. The MMA issued two
documents early in 2011Mobile Advertising Guidelines (v5.0) and
Universal Mobile Ad Package.
By June, however, it acknowledged there were shortcomings to these
guidelines. Now it is rolling out its third attempt, standardized formats for a
handful of commonly-used mobile ad types. MMA says this effort is
particularly significant as includes collaboration from the sales side,
including ad networks, rich media vendors and publishers, along with direct
input from the buy side at global ad agencies.
There is a comment period and then MMA hopes to introduce the six units
next year. All the major ad networks have agreed to support the new
standard set of units, MMA says.
MMA noted that most of the mobile ad impressions are being delivered to
mobile devices that operate on the iOS or Android systems. However, it
Page | 64

added, it is aware that many advertisers will want to create and place
advertising on devices that operate on Windows, Rim (Blackberry) or
Symbian (Belle update) systems. MMA will also offer initial guidance as to
what tablet ad unit sizes are gaining traction with both buyers and sellers. It
will continue to offer refreshed guidance every 6 months going forward.
Meanwhile, Google continues to tussle with government regulators in the
U.S. and Europe. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission began a formal
review of Google's strategies for building its search business, as well as the
tactics it is using to integrate search into its Android mobile operating
system.
The European Commission is investigating whether Google has unfairly
manipulated search results by lowering the rankings of competing services
and elevating its own offerings in unpaid results. The Korean Fair Trade
Commission is gathering information about Google, allegedly limiting
access to rival search engines on its Android mobile operating system
European regulators have been looking into Googles tactics since mid2010 and are fast approaching a decision. It is also reviewing Google's
pending bid to acquire Motorola Mobility, and regulators recently
suspended that review until Google produces additional documents
essential to its evaluation.
The challenge for regulators, if they determine that Google has acted
unlawfully, is devising a solution. One possibility is they will make it more
difficult for Google to acquire companies. Or it could create a regulatory
structure around the way Google generates its search results in browsers,
both desktop and mobile. Google continues to be embroiled in patent
litigation. Oracle has sued Google, while Microsoft and Apple have either
Page | 65

sued or threatened to sue companies that make devices that run Google's
Android and Chrome operating systems. Google has struggled to combat
the challenges, leading the company's chief legal officer, David Drummond,
to blog about "a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft,
Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents."
Google sports a small portfolio of patents, which has made it a bigger target
for such litigation and a key reason, according to Google Chief Executive
Larry Page, why it is purchasing Motorola Mobility. The company is a large
holder of mobile-device patents, which could help Google protect itself
against future litigation. Google will likely continue to acquire patents in
2012 to bolster its defenses against future lawsuits.
Marketers developing a mobile advertising strategy should closely follow
the strategic movements Google, Apple, and Facebook will make in early
2012. Each of their mobile advertising products will likely afford marketers
highly lucrative opportunities at competitive prices. The evidence continues
to mount for the emergence of mobile advertising as a highly effective way
to reach customers. And as awareness continues to grow, there will be
more segmentationboth by vertical and by specific technology from
Google, Apple, and Facebook that will allow marketers to target potential
customers with greater precision.
Theres little doubt that any of the three companys offerings will afford
advertisers the critical chance to deliver highly targeted pitches to
consumers in the mobile space. But consumers will come to understand the
benefits of reduced access fees and improved network services for the
sake of a somewhat intrusive branded mobile experience. Google and
Facebook will need to work hard to gain the users trust and prove their
Page | 66

value to end users without invading the consumers privacy. Personalization

will eventually drive better forms of mobile advertising, especially in
localized mobile search, as branded messages become customized to what
the end user is doing on his phone, be it looking for a place to eat or buying
a movie ticket.
Mind Commerce expects Googles mobile advertising business to attract a
multitude of major consumer brands that will leverage the companys in-app
and localized search offerings. To stay competitive with similar offerings
from Facebook and Apple, Google will likely defer advertising pricing
increases to 2015. Marketers looking to integrate Google into their overall
mobile advertising campaigns should consider the following key critical
success criteria to optimize their investment return:
Availability of non-intrusive advertising, such as those already being

worked seamlessly into mobile games, applications and videos.
Somehow localized search results should contain sponsored links
that provide detailed information or coupons.
An improved Android or other smartphone user experience that

promotes easy navigation of the in-app advertising interface.
Enhanced personalized mobile messaging to create a more

customized experience for the end user that leads to higher clickthrough and advertiser conversion rate just as it is doing on the
hard-lined Web.
Improved measurability via Google Analytics but beyond clickthrough rates. But advertisers should hold Google accountable for
providing consistent hard data on campaign successes.
Page | 67

One of the most popular features in mobile app and Web use over the past
year has been location based services. Facebooks Places and
Foursquare are bellwether location-based advertising vehicles. Facebooks
acquisition of Rel8tion, a mobile advertising company specializing in
locational services, shows the companys commitment to expanding its
location-based advertising strategy. AllThingsDigital reports that the ninemonth-old startup was focused on developing hyper-local advertising
solutions, and that Facebook will likely use it in conjunction with Places to
target users based on where they check in. According to PRWire,
NAVTEQs ad network LocationPoint recently teamed up with Poynt to offer
location based coupons and ads to their users. Poynt is a popular GPS
based mobile app for finding local restaurants, shops, and entertainment.
Together, NAVTEQ and Poynt will be able to send their users discounts
and offers to businesses near them. Mind Commerce expects that mobile
search, especially localized search, will be the dominant activity for
marketers to engage consumers with branded communications but they
should not ignore the potential of downloadable applications, streaming
video, and, most certainly, mobile messaging.
Many
vendors,
including
traditional
yellow
pages
publishers,
telecommunications companies, newspaper publishers, and loads of newer,

smaller technology start-ups are scrambling to dominate mobile search
because of its powerful potential to reach a mass audience who is looking
for specific products and services. Many carriers are partnering with mobile
search specific companies while the established pure-play Web search
companies (such as Google, Yahoo, and MSN) are launching their own
mobile solutions. Consumers are indeed flocking to mobile search services
to accomplish specific tasks, such as finding a map for directions or a
Page | 68

business address. Mobile search and display ads are expected to pass
messaging in 2012. Increases in mobile search advertising also coincide
with growing smartphone penetration. Search and display also rely on
faster and more pervasive mobile- Internet connectivity.
3.2 Federated CDN

There are many vendors from different industries that tend to enter the
market of the CDN. Yet basically, the CDN area attracts telecommunication
providers above all other industries. This refers to the larger and massive
capital expenditures by the carrier provider to server the ever growing
market. These infrastructures can be typically used to introduce better
content delivery experience to users. As the network pipes are massively
increasing in traffic capacity and the data rates are getting higher than ever
before.
Both TSPs and content providers are benefiting from the CDN business.
Typically, the telecommunication provider receives great revenue from
offering the CDN service over its own already built infrastructure. Thus,
TSPs will witness a dramatic reduction in capital expenditures associated
with repairing and maintaining the telecom infrastructure. As the TSP own
the last mile the content provider shall gain greater benefits delivering the
content closer to the user.
In order to compete against the large global CDN players, a group of
telecom service providers (TSPs) and operator carrier exchange (OCX)
announced a federation in June, 2011. The federation aims to connect the
Page | 69

TSPs servers in order to provide the content to a large number of federation

member users with a very large number of the points of presence (POPs).
This collaboration will result to introduce more CDN options for the content
providers. With the TSP entering the market of the CDN, a new type of
CDNs will likely emerge. Now there are many telecommunication vendors
offering promising CDN solutions. The list may include:
BT
France Telecom
Telstra
Telecom Italia
Telefonica
KPN
TeliaSonera
Polska Telekom
Bell
Verizon
TSP and OCX will collaboratively achieve a revenue stream. Merely, the
internet basically works between a group of free and paid peering networks
and the federated CDNs shall attain larger user base. One remarkable
opportunity is increasing the cost per benefit ratio through accommodating
larger traffic.
What makes federated CDN relatively remarkable than the traditional CDN
is that it will possibly overcome large number of obstacles that hinder the
Page | 70

traditional CDN. It can be easily built and customized to offer a multitude of

business models and strategies. Also it will be considered a good candidate
for todays demand for streaming contents larger than ever before.
3.3 CDN in the Cloud

CDNs are sometimes confused with cloud computing, and, in fact,
sometimes cloud applications are distributed on a CDN. But the
fundamental difference has to do with the servers physical and network
locations. In a CDN, servers are distributed to many different data centers
and have points of presence on many different networks. Cloud computing
may have all of its servers located in one data center, but sharing the
collective burden of all of the sites being hosted on the cloud. It is also
common for providers to offer both cloud computing and CDN service as a
package.
Cloud computing is seen by many people as the natural evolution of Grid
computing concepts. Both, for instance, rely on the use of service-based
approaches for provisioning compute and data resources. The importance
of understanding business models and the economics of distributed
computing systems and services has generally remained unchanged in the
move to Cloud computing. This understanding is necessary in order to build
sustainable e-infrastructure and businesses around this paradigm of
sharing Cloud services. Currently, only a handful of companies have
created successful businesses around Cloud services. Among these,
Amazon and Salesforce (with their offerings of Elastic Compute Cloud and
force.com among other offerings) are the most prominent. Both companies
understand how to charge for their services and how to enable commercial
Page | 71

transactions on them. However, whether a wide-spread adoption of Cloud

services will occur has to be seen. One key enabler remains the ability to
support suitable business models and charging schemes that appeal to
users outsourcing (part of) their internal business functions.
The cost of electricity for datacenters is a substantial operational cost that
can and should be managed, not only for saving energy, but also due to the
ecologic commitment inherent to power consumption. Often, pursuing this
goal results in chronic underutilization of resources, a luxury most resource
providers do not have in light of their corporate commitments. It has been
said that its not about what kind of IT we use, its about how we use it.
Reserving any judgment to the controversy, this statement seems to
become more and more relevant, where Green-IT usage policies step-up in
day-to-day IT business processes. What would today become the driving
trend in management of datacenters worldwide; not only greening the
hardware, but also greening the usage of it. But sustainability is no new
policy in business management. Since the industrialization during the 18th
and 19th centuries the role of sustainable management movement steadily
evolved. Where technologies such as the steam machine simplified the
transportation opportunities, they inadvertently led us to the current state of
threatening global warming. Accompanying the trend to globalization, the
improved information and communication technologies (ICT), required by
the fast growing IT-industry added to the toll. Alarmingly, most lower-level
users in the industry are not even aware of their impact.
Cloud computing basically is a revolutionary solution for all the above
issues. In the next section we will explain the cloud applications and its
architectures. After that we will be providing a full section on how cloud
Page | 72

computing can be used in the mobile applications and the impact of the
cloud computing on the telecommunication industry as a whole.
Cloud computing has a number of technologies, so before we move into
building systems in the cloud, we should understand the variety of cloud
infrastructure models. The most model that used nowadays is Amazon web
service. There are two types of cloud platforms, Infrastructure as a Service
(IaaS) and Platform as a Service (PaaS).
Platform as a service provide users with an infrastructure as well as
complete operational and development environments for the development
of their applications. Users can program using the vendors specific
application development platform and let the vendor worry about all
deployment details. The most commonly used example of pure PaaS is
Google App Engine. To leverage Google App Engine, the users write their
applications in Python against Googles development frameworks with tools
for using the Google file-system and data repositories. This approach works
well for applications that must be deployed rapidly and dont have
significant integration requirements.
The problem with PaaS approach is vendor lock-in. With Google, for
example, the user must write the application in the python programming
language to Google-specific APIs. While Python is a useful programming
language, however, its not a competency of most development teams.
Even if the enterprise has Python skills on staff, they must contend with the
fact that their Google App Engine application may only ever work well
inside Googles infrastructure. For the infrastructure as a service (IaaS) is
the core of the cloud. For example, Amazon web services have a number of
competitors who have different takes on the IaaS problems. These different
Page | 73

approaches have key value propositions for different kind of cloud

customers. Amazon Web Services is based on pure virtualization. Amazon
owns all the hardware and controls the network infrastructure and the users
own everything from the guest operating system up. The user simply
request virtual instances on-demand and let them go when they are done.
Amazon sees one of its key benefits is a commitment to not overcommitting resources to virtualization.
AppNexus represents a different approach to this problem. As with
Amazon, AppNexus enables the user to gain access to servers on demand.
AppNexus, however, provides dedicated servers with virtualization on top.
The user trust AppNexus because they know that their applications are not
with anyone else for resources and that they can meet any requirements
that demand full control over all physical servers resources. Hybrid
computing takes advantage of both worlds, offering virtualization where
appropriate and dedicated hardware where appropriate. In addition, most
hybrid vendors such as Rackspace and GoGrid base their model on the
idea that people still want a traditional data center, but they just want it in
the cloud.
For Amazon, AWS is Amazons umbrella description of all of their webbased technology. It encompasses a wide variety of services, all of which
fall into the concept of cloud computing. Amazon infrastructure services are
as follows:
Amazon Elastic Cloud compute (Amazon EC2)
Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3)
Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS)
Page | 74

Amazon CloudFront
Amazon Simple DB
The Amazon Elastic Cloud Compute is the core of the Amazon cloud
business. It provides a web services API for provisioning, managing and
de-provisioning virtual servers inside the Amazon cloud. Any application on
the internet can launch a virtual server in the Amazon cloud with a single
web service call. Amazon EC2 has three data centers on the East Coast of
the U.S. and two in Western Europe. Any user can sign up separately from
an Amazon European data center account, but no one can mix and match
U.S. and European environments. Amazon EC2 uses highly customized
version of the Open Source Xen hypervisor using para-virtualization. This
Xen environment enables the dynamic provisioning and de-provisioning of
servers, as well as the capabilities necessary to provide isolated computing
environment for guest servers.
For the Amazon S3, its a cloud-based persistent storage. It operates
independently from other Amazon services. In matter of fact, the
applications that the users write for hosting their own servers can leverage
Amazon S3 without any need to otherwise be in the cloud. Amazon S3 is
not a simple storage as it seems like, its the feature set not the ease of
use. Amazon S3 enables the user to simple put data in the cloud and pulls
it back out. So the user does not need to know how it is stored or where is it
actually stored. Technically speaking Amazon S3 is not a remote filesystem. Amazon S3 is way more primitive than a File-system. User does
not really store files in the Amazon S3 they store objects. The objects are
stored in buckets not directories. Although these distinctions may appear to
be semantic, they include a number of important differences:
Page | 75

Objects stored in S3 can be no larger than 5 GB
Buckets exist in a flat name space shared among all Amazon users.
The buckets and objects can be set to the general public for
viewing.
Before accessing S3, the user needs to sign up for Amazon Web services
account. The user will be asked for default storage in either the United
States or Europe. Storing data is not simply a function of where the user
lives, as regulatory and privacy is a main concern when signing up. Users
will be using the closest region to them to access the S3. The Amazon S3
is available through both SOAP API and REST API.
The Amazon Web Services APIs support the ability to:
Find buckets and objects
Discover their metadata
Create new buckets
Upload new objects
Delete existing buckets and objects
Each bucket can optionally place in a specific location in which the buckets
contents should be stored.
Page | 76

Page | 77

4 Key Vendor Analysis

Currently the market highly fragmented, with many CDN providers, as some
large services providers use their own CDN, while others use third-party
CDN providers. There are a lot of CDN providers, but who are the best?
Who can be trusted? Who has the best offers and service?
We evaluate the following:
Akamai
CDNetworks
Level 3 Communications Inc
Limelight Networks
BitGravity
BroadMedia
Accelia
NaviSite
Solid State Networks
Nokia Siemens Networks
Alcatel-Lucent
Ericsson
Some CDN providers are free (like PeerCast), but more enterprise-class
CDN providers offer initial account costs of $500 and go into the thousands
of dollars with larger business accounts. There are many notable vendors
Page | 78

who entered the CDN business. This offered a great boost the service by
tremendous bunch of solutions. The list includes but not limited to:
4.1 Nokia Siemens Networks

Nokia Siemens Networks is a multinational data networking and
telecommunications equipment company, headquartered in Espoo, Finland
and a joint venture between Nokia of Finland and Siemens of Germany. It is
the world's fourth-largest telecoms equipment manufacturer measured by
2011 revenues (after Ericsson, Huawei and Alcatel-Lucent). Nokia Siemens
Networks has operations in around 150 countries.
Some of Nokia Siemens Networks key products include:
Communication equipment for mobile Carriers
Device management
Fixed-mobile convergence
Hosting
Integrated provisioning
Inventory management
IPTV
Mobile backhaul
Mobile TV
NSN Operator Content Delivery Network (CDN) enables operators to

dynamically allocate network resources and optimize content to control its
delivery right down to the user device. The NSN solution has several
benefits:
Page | 79

Using the network resources in the right way
Provides new revenue streams
In 2013, NSN and CDNetworks signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU) on a set of common objectives around Liquid Applications* and
operator Content Delivery Networks (CDN). The purpose of the agreement
is to enhance liquid applications for content acceleration, thus, enhancing
capabilities of location and referral, along with awareness of user behavior
and real-time network conditions.
4.1.1
Strengths
Market leadership: NSN holds a leadership position in the

infrastructure vendors market
Full Package solutions: NSN provides a full package solutions for

carriers including other infrastructure services
Completed tested solution by big carriers
4.1.2
Relatively expensive solutions

4.1.3
Weakness
Opportunities
The expansion of the market in CDN
Page | 80

4.1.4
Threats
Advances in the CDN technologies: CDN technologies change

every day especially with the market expansion.
4.2 Ericsson
Ericsson is the world's leading provider of technology and services to
telecom Carriers. Ericsson is the leader in 2G, 3G and 4G mobile
technologies, and provides support for networks with over 2 billion
subscribers and has the leading position in managed services. The
company's portfolio comprises mobile and fixed network infrastructure,
telecom services, and software, broadband and multimedia solutions for
Carriers, enterprises and the media industry.
The Sony Ericsson and ST-Ericsson joint ventures provide consumers with
feature-rich personal mobile devices. Ericsson is advancing its vision of
being the "prime driver in an all-communicating world" through innovation,
technology, and sustainable business solutions. Working in 180 countries,
more than 90,000 employees generated revenue of SEK 203.3 billion (USD
28.2 billion) in 2010. Founded in 1876 with the headquarters in Stockholm,
Sweden, Ericsson is listed on NASDAQ OMX, Stockholm and NASDAQ
New York.
4.2.1
Strengths
Page | 81

Market leadership: Ericsson is one of the leaders in the

infrastructure vendors market
Hassle free software integration: Ericssons CDN solution provide

hassle-free software that can be easily integrated in exciting delivery
networks
Big customer base
Completed CDN solutions: including media delivery networks]
Cost effective solutions

4.2.2
Weakness
No cloud offerings yet

4.2.3
Opportunities
Slow market penetration than other major vendors

4.2.4
Threats

4.3 Alcatel-Lucent (Velocix)

4.3.1
Strengths
Page | 82

Mind Commerce set Alcatel-Lucent CDN solution on the top of the

other CDN vendors
Full Package solutions: Alcatel-lucent also provides a full package

CDN including multiscreen digital media content delivery services
and IP Video networks.
Smart market acquisitions including (Velocix)

4.3.2
Weakness
Limited global presence in the CDN market.

4.3.3
Opportunities
Signing exciting clients to the new CDN solutions

4.3.4
Threats

Competition from other major infrastructure vendors such as

Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent with the same offering
4.4 CloudFlare
CloudFlare is another American CDN provider. It was founded in July 2009
and headquartered in San Francisco, California, US. It produces
Page | 83

CloudFlare CDN brand and offers some services such as website

performance in addition to security as a service.
The company offers four CDN service plans: free, pro, business and
enterprise plans. It serves many customers outside the US including the
Turkish government content delivery. In February 2013, Zero Science Lab
has announced that according to a comparative penetration test analysis
that CloudFlare CDN technology lies behind the other tested CDN
ModSecurity and Incapsula.
4.4.1
Strengths
Good customer base: the company has several contracts inside and
outside the US.
Cloud-based solutions: the company offers cloud-based CDN

technology for better QoS.
Good position in the cloud market
Diversity of Products
4.4.2
Weakness
Page | 84

Some security problems
4.4.3
Opportunities
The expansion of the cloud market operations globally
4.4.4
Threats
Competition
4.5 Amazon CloudFront

Amazon web service launched Amazon CloudFront in November 2008 as a
CDN. CloudFront owns huge number of servers all over the world including
Europe (UK, Spain, Germany, and Ireland), Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore,
Japan and India) as well as Australia, South America and several major
cities in United States. The huge number of the distributed servers makes
CloudFront a strong candidate for all major CDN providers.
Page | 85

4.5.1
Strengths
Big Name: Amazon is one of the biggest names in the cloud

segment.
Up to date technologies and good R&D department
Good financial streams: from the above two strengths points, we

can expect that Amazon has strong financial streams.
Good market place: Amazon CloudFront stands between the top 5

CDN providers globally with clients in Europe (UK, Spain, Germany,
and Ireland), Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and India) as well
as Australia, South America.
4.5.2
Stock market changes

4.5.3
Weaknesses
Opportunities
The expansion of the CDN market: The market for the CDN is
expanding worldwide.
Increasing bandwidth demands: With the introduction of LTE,

telecommunication and mobile CDN will increase for the video and
media delivery.
4.5.4
Threats
Page | 86

Competition: there are several startp-ups in the CDN arena and they
are a threat for Akamai as they provide lower prices.

4.6 EdgeCast
EdgeCast is an American company launched in 2006 and headquartered in
Santa Monica, California US. It offers a CDN services for some popular
content
providers
such
as:
Pinterest,
Mashable,
Yahoo!,
Sony
Entertainment, LinkedIn, Tumblr, and WordPress along with many other

notable customers.
4.6.1
Strengths
Good market place.
Diversity of products
Verizon acquisition
4.6.2
Weaknesses
Lack of Support
4.6.3
Opportunities
Page | 87


media delivery.
4.6.4
Threats
Competition: there are several startp-ups in the CDN arena and they

4.7 MaxCDN
MaxCDN is a private American company founded in 2009. It is located in
California, US. It delivers CDN solutions and maintains regional Edge
Servers that delivers rich-content with a reduced latency. It serves many
notable customers such as AddToAny, BuySellAds.com, Forbes, Kodak,
MacRumors, Mobify, MyFitnessPal, Nissan Motor Company, Rayovac,
Spiceworks and some others.
4.7.1
Strengths
Good Customer base
Page | 88

4.7.2
Low market penetration

4.7.3
Weaknesses
Opportunities

media delivery.
4.7.4
Threats
Competition.

4.8 CacheFly
CacheFly was founded in 2002 in Chicago, US and launched later in 2005.
The company serves the content providers worldwide. The company major
business is the content delivery networks. The CacheFly CDN uses the
TCP Anycast rather than the traditional DNS load balancing. It offers
instantaneous setup for configuration which makes the company relatively
Page | 89

preferable than some other CDN large providers. The major company using
CacheFly is AppleInsider.
4.8.1
Strengths
Global presence
Innovative products
Good client base

4.8.2
Lack of advertising
4.8.3
Weaknesses
Opportunities

media delivery.
4.8.4
Threats
Competition: there are several start-ups in the CDN arena and they

Page | 90

4.9 Highwinds
The company is known as Highwinds Network Group, Inc., it is a key player
in the CDN business through a wide range of solution and technologies.
The company is also involved in many business related generally to the
internet technology.
4.9.1
Strengths
4.9.2
Weak R&D
4.9.3
Weaknesses
Opportunities

media delivery.
4.9.4
Threats
Page | 91


4.10 Internap
Internap is an American public internet service company. It was founded in
1996 and located in Georgia, US. The company offers many internet
related products and services including
hosting, data center, cloud
computing, IP networking services and the Content Delivery Network

service. The company was reported to achieve more than $273 million in
2012.
4.10.1 Strengths
Good market place.
Good customer support
Global presence in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and

Australia
Strategic acquisitions: the company acquired VitalStream Holdings,

Inc, Voxel Holdings, Inc and CO Space.
4.10.2 Weaknesses
Page | 92

Slow market penetration

4.10.3 Opportunities

media delivery.
4.10.4 Threats
Competition: there are several start-ups in the CDN arena and they are a
threat for Akamai as they provide lower prices.
Advances in the CDN technologies: CDN technologies change every day
especially with the market expansion.
4.11 Akamai
Akamai have a range of offerings including products, services and tools that
ameliorate Web content -- ranging from streaming media, static and
dynamic content transport and applications. They also provide content
management and enhancing application delivery on internet.
Akamai is considered is the best CDN provider, but we must know its
SWOT analysis because choosing a CDN provider depends on the network
Page | 93

requirements, size, growth rate and the content the client is aiming to
optimize, the client will need to examine individual content delivery network
services along with their offerings in order to choose the best offering for
them.
Founded in 1998 as a public US company, Akamai is one of the internet
industry giants. It has achieved $1.16 billion in 2011 with a net income
$200.9 million. The company has been in the business of internet content
delivery since 1998.
Akamai offers the CDN services for the most popular social network sites
Facebook and Twitter. It also serve Bing search engine. With these major
content providers the company holds a great share of the CDN market
serving a huge number of users.
4.11.1 Strengths
Big customers: Akamai has the big customers out there such as
military, pharmaceuticals, top media providers, Aerospace, social
media, ecommerce, and sports agencies.
Up to date technologies and good R&D department: Akamai use a

decent share of their profit to spend on the R&D in order for them to
compete in the market.
Good financial streams: from the above two strengths points, we

can expect that Akamai has strong financial streams.
Good market place: Akamai stands between the top 5 CDN

providers with more than 80 percent market share.
Page | 94

4.11.2 Weaknesses
Dependence on the US Short term liquidity concerns:
Stock market changes

expanding worldwide, and its expected that it will reach $2 billion by
2016 (Without the CDN federation) or $6 Billion with the CDN
federation being installed.

media delivery.
Acquisitions: as Akamai holds a good market place, they can offer

to buy new start-ups and control the market.
4.11.4 Threats

4.12 CDNetworks
Page | 95

CDNetworks is considered one of the top players in the CDN area. It has
been acquired recently by the KDDI telecom. It's Asias largest CDN service
provider and provides content acceleration with a global network of POPs.
Their customers include Toyota, K2Network, Nexon, Megastudy, NCSoft,
etc.
CDNetworks is one of the major vendors of the content delivery networks
industry. It was previously a privately owned company founded in 2000
located in Seoul, Korea. The company chief executive officer is Jong Chan
Kim. CDNetworks offers content delivery service for a wide range of
internet based services that may include: online gaming, broad cast media,
entertainment, e-learning, social networks, retail, finance and software. The
company operates in 4 major countries including USA, Japan, China and
Korea in addition to EMEA.
4.12.1 Strengths
Good market place in the Asian market: CDNetworks considered

as one of the giant players in the Asian market.
Good R&D
Good customer base: CDNetworks has most of the big players in

the Asian market such as; Toyota, K2Network, Nexon, Megastudy,
NCSoft, etc.
Acquisition by KDDI: This gives CDNetworks a better market place

and better financial stability.
Good position in the cloud market
Multinational content delivery network with local expertise and

infrastructure inside mainland China and across six continents
Page | 96

CDN business has assets outside of Asia as well
Control of CDNetworks gives KDDI a top-5 position in the global

CDN space, leapfrogging all other network operators except
perhaps Level 3
4.12.2 Weakness
Asian stock market problems
Some security problems
The expansion of the Asian market in CDN
The expansion of the cloud market operations in Asia
4.12.4 Threats
Competition

4.13 Level 3 Communications Inc
Page | 97

Level 3 is considered as one of the top competitor for Akamai. They have a
good market share in the CDN area. Their customers are most of the
medium to large Internet carriers in North America, Latin America, Europe
and selected cities in Asia.
Level 3 is one of the telecom service providers. The company was founded
in 1985. It is headquartered in Colorado, US. The company business
includes wide range of internet and telecom related industries. The
company also has entered the market of the CDN. It provides media
broadcasting over IP and content delivery for many content providers
around the world. This may include North America, Latin America, Asia and
Europe.
4.13.1 Strengths
Technology strengths and good R&D department
Unique products
Good financial management to reduce costs
4.13.2 Weakness
Debt problem: Level 3 still paying some debts and they are
struggling to pay it off
Bad acquisitions decisions.
Page | 98

The expansion of the CDN market
New products and market opportunities
Data services for mobile devices
Company expansion and infrastructure expanding
4.13.4 Threats
Aggressive competition
Government regulation
The economy changes
4.14 Limelight Networks

Limelight Networks, Inc. provides content delivery services for traditional
and emerging media companies and other print, film, music, and interactive
content providers, as well as offering a Web-based customer portal that
offers management information reports and a download processing
manager. Limelight Networks services clients in the United States, Europe,
and the Asia Pacific.
Page | 99

Limelight Networks is one of the internet hosting service giants. It was

founded in 2001 and located in Arizona, US. It is involved in many
industries related to the internet technology that may include: Content
delivery, Orchestrate Performance, Digital Presence Management, Web
Content Management, and Online Video Management Platform.
There are some speculations that Limelight is negotiating a deal with
Verizon to be purchased. The purchase will for sure work for Verizons
favor to enhance its next generation networks along with its media delivery
networks. There are no official statements so far from both sides, but it
seems like it might be just a rumor as Verizon acquired EdgeCast lately.
When Verizon spokesman was asked about this rumor, he replied we don't
comment on speculation."
4.14.1 Strengths
Good customer base such as: NBC and Disney
Good infrastructure servers.

4.14.2 Weakness
Low market share
Financial instability
Several big clients left the company lately
Several clients reported bad performance of their solutions
Page | 100

The expansion of the CDN market in the US and Asia
Acquisitions
The expansion of the mobile CDN market
4.14.4 Threats
The rise of the competition in the market
Infrastructure-lite CDN service offerings by a growing number of IT

and Web-hosting companies
OTT provider are investing in their own CDNs such as: Amazon,
Microsoft and Google
4.15 Revenue Expectations for CDN Providers

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.
Online video in particular, including User
Generated Content (USG) posted to the likes of Facebook and YouTube,

has significantly contributed CDN revenue growth.
The digital content market is poised to reach a new stage in its evolution
with the coming pipeline of next generation applications and solutions.
Content consumption among consumers is exploding due to many factors
Page | 101

including higher bandwidth, low cost digital devices, and smart devices
(phones, tablets, and wearable wireless) devices.
Mind Commerce continues to see strong revenue growth for CDN
providers. For specific market data and forecasts, see Section Five of this
report.
4.16 Threats to CDNs Providers: Google and Amazon

Amazon web service has started to gain a good market share in the cloud
arena. Currently they are investing heavily in the CDN market. When
Amazon announced its new enhancement in their CDN offerings other
competitors started to worry. This is considered as a threat for Akamai (who
is considered the top CDN provider worldwide) as Amazon will take a big
share of the market. Recently Akamai paid $268 million for Israel-based
Cotendo, whose technology whisks "dynamic" content, such as streaming
video over fixed-line Internet and wireless data networks.
This means that Akamai is investing in moving video and online gaming
content because customers require more technical support than Amazon
has traditionally provided. CDN pricing is expected to be down about 10%,
also Akamai shares were down 1.4%, near 28.90. And Amazon was down
1.2%, near 215.90.
Amazon did not change the cloud offerings prices and they are enhancing
the CDN offerings as well. Since CDNs first became commercially available
in 1996, the market has been dramatically transformed by the parallel
Page | 102

trends of consolidation and growing competition. Amazons Cloud Drive is

as straightforward as a cloud service gets: Its just an online storage locker.
You put files in there, and theyre online. You can access the files from any
device that supports Flash.
4.17 Overall Analysis and Top Ten Comparative Analysis

Top CDN Providers
Akami remains the top CDN vendor in 2014 and it has more than 26%
market share. Akami is used by the big names in the market and comes
after that EdgeCast.
Mind Commerce has considered the non-carrier infrastructure CDN
providers primarily as they tend to be a more utilitarian choice for most
CDN customers.
Many leading telecom companies have built out CDNs
for their own internal use and are not selling it as a commercial CDN
service.
1. Akami
2. Max CDN
3. Amazon
4. CloudFlare
5. CDNetworks
6. Limelight Networks
7. Internap
8. CacheFly
Page | 103

9. EdgeCast
10. CDNsun
Akami: Used by big name companies including Facebook and carries a

large portion of Web traffic. The company is experiencing some growing
pains as they have rapidly grown as a company, but not too many hiccups.
Akamai does not provide specific details about the location of it POPs.
However, the company has disclosed the size of its CDN network as over
127,000 servers in 81 countries.
Max CDN: Receives high grades for openness and flexibility in terms of
working with customers.
This is another good choice for start-up
companies that do not need too many POPs. However, will be an issue for
the company that needs truly global coverage.
With approximately 12
global POPs, the companys servers are largely concentrated in the United
States.
Amazon: Good all-around CDN provider.
May be some concerns for
certain customers involved in competitive areas, but this seems to be more

perception than reality. The company has approximately 32 POPs globally,
offering good global coverage.
CloudFlare: This is a good choice for smaller operations as pricing options
favor scalability at the lower end. We remain unsure about choosing them
for larger operations.
CDNetworks: A solid CDN company, CDNetworks has experience across
a variety of content types and geographies.
The acquisition by KDDI
Page | 104

expected to provide CDNetworks with a better market place and better

financial stability. The company has approximately 140 POPs globally. Its
focus is on markets that are relatively untouched by small business CDNs,
such as China (25 points of presence) and Russia (10). This small business
CDN also includes POPs in Australia (2), South America (5), the Middle
East (5), Europe (30) and the U.S. (20).
Internap: In terms of pricing, Internap offers no per-page request fees,
validation fees or other line items common to many CDNs, and you only
pay for storage if you want it. Diversity of products and excellent customer
support characterize this CDN provider.
Acquisitions should help-long
term, but may be an issue with integration in the near-term. This is not
expected to substantively affect performance. The company leverages a
partner network to effectively realize a greater number of POPs than its
own approximate 11 based in the United States.
CacheFly: The company receives high marks for ease of engagement as
well as performance in all important categories.
Most CDNs use DNS
magic to optimize content delivery. CacheFly uses a completely different

technique called Anycast, wherein a single IP address is routed to different
(more optimal) locations based on you origin of the request. This is a much
more efficient and often better performing method for content delivery. A
good all-around CDN provider, CacheFly has few weaknesses.
The
company has approximately 30 global POPs with about nine of those in the
United States.
EdgeCast: The company boasts a whos who of customers including
Tumblr, AVG, jetBlue, Myspace, Pinterest, SoundCloud, Yahoo! and
Technorati. Perhaps the most impressive thing about this CDN provider is
Page | 105

their willingness to customize. Even more impressive is they seem to do a

very good job at managing SLAs and other custom aspects of each
contract. The company has approximately 50 global POPs located in a
variety of different countries.
CDNsun: Good value for the money, good coverage, and high marks for
integration, set-up, and trialing. This CDN provider also represents another
good choice for the low end of the scale in terms of utilization a good
choice
for
start-up,
low-volume
operations.
The
company
has
approximately 70 POPs globally located in a variety of different countries.

Other Companies Considered:
Abacast
BitGravity
EdgeStream
These other companies considered represent other potential CDN

companies that may be used by various companies, but no sufficient data
was available at the time of publication to rate them.
Page | 106

5 CDN Market Outlook and Forecasts 2014 - 2019

5.1 CDN Service Revenues 2014 - 2019
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
5-Yeat
CAGR (%)
- 2014 2019
4,148
5,216
5,402
6,679
7.253
8,736
29%
( Millions $ USD )
CDN Service Revenue by Region

10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
CDN Service Revenue by

Region
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 7: CDN Revenues 2014 - 2019
Page | 107

Page | 108

5.2
CDN Service Revenue by Region: 2014 - 2019
Region
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
5-Yeat
CAGR (%)
- 2014 2019
Africa
6.8
13
13.8
14.3
39%
Asia Pacific
992
1,389
1,834
2,383
2,622
2.834
38%
Eastern Europe
30
40
53
71
75
80
32%
Latin & Central America
54
72
100
146
172
179
35%
Middle East
11
16
20
28
35%
North America
1,469
1,835
2,115
2,368
2,123
2,770
25%
Western Europe
672
946
1,280
1,681
1,925
2,423
36%
Figure 8: CDN Overall Service Revenue by Region 2014 2019

( Millions $ USD )
5.3
CDN Video Service Revenue by Region: 2014 - 2019
Region
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
5-Yeat
CAGR (%)
- 2014 2019
Africa
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.8
80%
Asia Pacific
838
1,203
1,608
2,094
2,491
2,718
41%
Eastern Europe
11
18
27
39
42
43
47%
16
26
44
76
77
77.2
56%
Middle East
4.3
52%
North America
1,229
1,565
1,820
2,042
2,143
2,514
28%
Western Europe
466
706
1,000
1,343
1,421
1,742
45%
Figure 9: CDN Video Service Revenue by Region 2014 - 2019

( Millions $ USD )
Page | 109

5.4
CDN Other Service Revenue by Region 2014 - 2019
Region
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
5-Yeat
CAGR (%)
- 2014 2019
Africa
12
13.9
14.93
37%
Asia Pacific
154
186
226
289
390
428
23%
Eastern Europe
18
22
26
32
39
46
21%
38
46
56
70
76
82
23%
Middle East
12
13
16
32%
North America
239
270
295
326
392
427
14%
Western Europe
206
240
279
338
473
501
18%
Figure 10: CDN Non-video Service Revenue by Region 2014 - 2019
5.5
CDN Service Revenue by Category 2014 - 2019
Category
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
5-Yeat
CAGR (%)
- 2014 2019
Video
2,563
3,520
4,502
5,599
6,325
6,920
36%
Non-Video
665
777
900
1,080
1,113
1,848
18%
Figure 11: CDN Video Service Revenue by Category 2014 - 2019
Page | 110

5.6
Overall Trends and Future Outlook for CDN Marketplace

As we mentioned earlier, there are some CDN providers that specialize or
focus in certain areas. We see a strong need for these companies to
establish a firm niche for their services as there will likely be significant
consolidation in the CDN industry within the next five years.
Consolidation will be driven primarily by economies of scale of larger
players and the ever-decreasing cost of doing business and the expectation
on the part of CDN clients for equally reducing costs for storage and usage.
We also mentioned that certain leading network operators (telecom
carriers) have established their own CDN networks.
We see a strong
possibility that these companies will at some point in the near future
establish a second instance of their infrastructure for purposes of offering
Content as a Service to (CaaS) to compete with the likes of Akamai and
others.
They
will
leverage
certain
advantages
such
as
their
ownership/control of the last mile, which brings the benefits of minimized

distance that video data travels over the general Internet and delivers it
more quickly and reliably. However, they will content with conflicts in some
cases with providing services to their competitors such as Facebook.
Page | 111

Custom Research Services

Do you have a need for special research into a particular area but don't have the time
and/or resources for specific project?
Mind Commerce offers independent and customized research as well as consulting
services. We will research, evaluate, and report findings and recommendations based
on your unique requirements for various projects such as:
Market Research
Competitive Analysis
Technical Assessment
Research Services on Request

For special research requests email us at Research@MindCommerce.com
Page | 112

81537cloud Management - Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

81537cloud Management - Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cloud Management: Content

Delivery Networks (CDN)

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 7

Content Delivery Networks ..................................................................... 12

CDN APPLICATIONS ............................................................................... 50

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Key Vendor Analysis ............................................................................... 78

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

4.14 Limelight Networks ...................................................................................................................... 99

CDN Market Outlook and Forecasts 2014 - 2019 ................................ 107

CDN Service Revenues 2014 - 2019 ........................................................................................ 107

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Solutions include core services such as aggregation,

management, and distribution of content as well as a variety of value-added

In particular, the convergence of

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

download a movie; post videos to many social-networking sites; and, of

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

The report covers the following topics

Business Case for CDN: An assessment of the business case for

Technology Review: A review of the underlying technology

Industry Value Chain: An analysis of the CDN value chain

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Key Questions Answered

The report provides answers to the following key questions:

What are CDNs

What benefits do CDN bring to Carriers?

How much will the CDN market be worth in 2019?

Want benefits do LTE networks brings to CDN

Googles role in the CDN growth

The report targets the following audience.

Mobile Network Carriers

Service Bureau Companies

Wireless Infrastructure Vendors

Telecom Managed Service Providers

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Level 3 Communications Inc

Nokia Siemens Networks

Solid State Networks

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Content Delivery Networks

In this section we evaluate the technology behind CDN solutions.

Analytics: Cedexis, Gomez, Keynote, Catchpoint

SDN/NFV: Big Switch, Plaribus, Cumulus, Ciena, 6Wind, Avi

Overview and Common Technology Employed

Content Delivery Networks (CDN) provides better performance and

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

enabled devices. CDN servers must be located closer to the ultimate

Figure 1: CDN Delivers Many Content Types to Many Device Types

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

One key-advantage of CDN is that it merely delivers contents with high

Figure 2: Content Distribution Schemes

Another advantage CDN offers is that it helps to offload bandwidth traffic

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

2.2 CDN Technology and Functionality

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)

Figure 3: CDN Distributed Servers

Domain Name System (DNS)

Cloud Management: Content Delivery Networks (CDN)