Internet2:Which rôle for Europe?

Guy Almes, Internet2 Project

<almes@internet2.edu>

Dresden, Germany6 October 1998

Outline

The challenge before us Technical developments

• Measurements• Quality of Service• Others

Infrastructure• Abilene, vBNS, gigaPoPs, and campuses• International

The rôle for Europe

The challenge before us

Universities, by their nature, • mix teaching and research• collaborate with scholars at other

universities Thus, advanced applications for

• conferencing• remote instrument access• digital libraries

What networks will these need?

Applications and engineering

Applications

Engineering

Motivate Enables

Large Delay-Bandwidth Products

As the delay-bandwidth product grows:• The number of unacknowledged packets grows• It becomes more difficult to sustain a steady

stream of data from end to end Several consequences:

• Need for direct physical paths• Tradeoff between buffering and

variation in delay

A pessimistic result from Mathis et al.

Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, "The Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm", Computer Communication Review, July 1997.

www.psc.edu/networking/papers/model_abstract.html

BW C * packet-size / (delay * packet-loss)

Example: Delay

BW C / delay

delay due to distance

original raw bandwidth

Example: Delay with fatter pipe

BW C / delay

delay due to distance

more raw bandwidth

Technical developments:Measurements Motivation:

• Need for understanding• Infrastructure at the cutting edge• Notoriously hard-to-please users

Relation to other challenges• Very wide area• Very high speed• Bursty applications

Three kinds of measurement Traffic utilization

• e.g., MRTG IETF IPPM measures, including

• one-way delay• packet loss

Passive observation of user flows• OC3MON .. OC12MON• RTFM

Loci of measurement

At university boundaries Between key ‘clouds’ Within clouds also, but this can

vary At end-systems also, in support of

application developers

Examples from the Internet2 infrastructure...

Backbone ‘A’

Backbone ‘B’

Backbone ‘A’

Backbone ‘B’

Backbone ‘A’

Backbone ‘B’

One example:IPPM measurements in Abilene Surveyor implementation of IPPM

will be placed at each router node This will permit understanding of

one-way delay to within about 50 µsec

This will also support similar measurements for gigaPoPs and universities

Example One-way delay display

OC3MON: a family of passive measurement tools Developed for the NSF/MCI vBNS

effort Examines packet headers of user

traffic Examples:

• nature of flows• distribution of sizes of packets• pattern of sources and destinations• all of above on a per-application basis

Work remains to be done here

Technical developments:Quality of Service Motivation:

• some advanced applications are intolerant of loss, variation if delay, and inconsistent bandwidth

• generous provisioning is not always possible

Relation to other challenges:• diversity of infrastructure• high-speed, wide-area, bursty flows

Consensus within Internet2 QoS Working Group IETF diff-serv a key to scaling Focus initially on “non-relative”

services• Premium the initial specific focus• Other services later

Begin immediate testbed trials Take an iterative approach

diff-serv Architecture

BB

Leaf Router (police, mark flows)

BB

Ingress Edge Router (classify, police, mark aggregates)

EgressEdge Router

(shape aggregates)

Corerouters

Corerouters

Source

Bandwidth Brokers(perform admissions control, manage network resources,

configure leaf and edge devices) Destination

Initiation of the QBone effort Goals:

• Grow the set of interoperable diffserv clouds• Grow a community of participants• Foster pre-standards interoperability• Collaborate to solve problems

Participant Types• Networks• Network engineering• Applications and middleware developers• Corporate partners

CCIRN Working Groups

Measurements Quality of Service Meetings:

• Geneva: June 1998• Chicago: August 1998• Orlando: December 1998

Other key technical areas

Multicast IPv6 Network Storage Routing

Infrastructure:Abilene Addresses growing needs of

Internet2 for performance and functionality

Improves breadth of access Tests notion of multiple

‘backbones’ within Internet2 Technical diversity:

• Abilene: IP/Sonet• vBNS: IP/ATM

Abilene Topology: Jan-99

Seattle

Kansas City

Denver

Cleveland

New York

Atlanta

Houston

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

ColumbusWashington

Phoenix

Raleigh

TrentonSalt Lake City

Wilmington

Dallas

New Orleans

Lincoln

New Haven

Detroit

Miami

Westfield

Nashville

Philadelphia

Indianapolis

Newark

Abilene

AlbuquerqueOklahoma City

28 Total Access Nodes

17 Directly Connected Participants

Directly Connected ParticipantAccess NodeRouter Node

Sacramento

Oakland

Eugene

Los Angeles

Anaheim

Boston

Abilene Engineering and Goals Very High Speed Connectivity

• Among Internet2 gigaPoPs, including vBNS• Other federal ‘NGI’ networks• Non-US advanced networks

Qualities Stressed: • Reliability• Low latency• Effective NOC and Engineering teamwork

Abilene Architecture: Core

Router Nodes located at Qwest PoPs• Cisco 12008 GSR• ICS Unix PC: IPPM and Network Mgmt• Cisco 3640 Remote Access for NOC• 100BaseT LAN and ‘console port’ access• Remote 48v DC Power Controllers

Initially, ten Router Nodes:

Seattle

Kansas City

Denver

Cleveland

New York

Atlanta

Houston

Indianapolis

Abilene

Launch: Core Architecture

Router Node

Sacramento

Los Angeles

Abilene Architecture: Access

Access Nodes• Located at Qwest PoPs• Sonet: Connects Local to Long-distance

Initially, about 120 Access Nodes:• This list grows as the Qwest Sonet plant

grows

Seattle

Kansas City

Denver

Cleveland

New York

Atlanta

Houston

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

ColumbusWashington

Phoenix

Raleigh

TrentonSalt Lake City

Wilmington

Dallas

New Orleans

Lincoln

New Haven

Detroit

Miami

Westfield

Nashville

Philadelphia

Indianapolis

Newark

Abilene

AlbuquerqueOklahoma City

Launch: With Access Nodes

Access NodeRouter Node

Sacramento

Oakland

Eugene

Los Angeles

Anaheim

Boston

Chicago

Schedule

Design work: Mar-98 and ongoing Rack design/built: May-98 to Aug-

98 Demo network installed: Sep-98 Remainder installed: Oct-98 Beta Period: 1-Nov-98 Production begins: 1-Jan-99

Seattle

Kansas City

Denver

Cleveland

New York

Atlanta

Houston

Pittsburgh

Minneapolis

ColumbusWashington

Phoenix

Raleigh

TrentonSalt Lake City

Wilmington

Dallas

New Orleans

Lincoln

New Haven

Detroit

Miami

Westfield

Nashville

Philadelphia

Indianapolis

Newark

Abilene

AlbuquerqueOklahoma City

Abilene Demo Network: September 1998

Access NodeRouter Node Star Tap

Abilene Network

Sacramento

Oakland

Eugene

Los Angeles

Anaheim

Boston

Infrastructure:Other US Developments GigaPoPs

• CalREN2: northern and southern California• Great Plains Network• Pacific Northwest GigaPoP

vBNS: continuing improvement• planned OC-48 work• multicast leadership

federal agency networks• ESnet, NREN, etc.

Evolution of the NGIX idea Exchange points appropriate for

NGI / Internet2 and related networks

Initially:• NASA Ames, Chicago (StarTap), and DC

Result of the JET: Joint Engineering Team

Infrastructure:International Needs of applications:

• Bandwidth• Latency• Measurements• Quality of Service• Multicast

MOUs• CANARIE• NORDUnet• SURFnet

The Rôle for Europe

Work with us on technical developments• Measurements• Quality of Service• Others

Build European Infrastructure• Support advanced applications• Test technical ideas

Evolve international infrastructure