23 September 2015 Pan-Continental Perspective: Key Issues seen by Internet2 Guy Almes...

Post on 20-Jan-2016

213 views 0 download

Tags:

Transcript of 23 September 2015 Pan-Continental Perspective: Key Issues seen by Internet2 Guy Almes...

April 21, 2023

Pan-Continental Perspective: Key Issues seen by Internet2Pan-Continental Perspective: Key Issues seen by Internet2

Guy Almes almes@internet2.edu

Heather Boyles heather@internet2.edu

Steve Corbató corbato@internet2.edu

Guy Almes almes@internet2.edu

Heather Boyles heather@internet2.edu

Steve Corbató corbato@internet2.edu

Where Internet2 is coming from

University-led

Partnership model• Abilene built & operated in partnership with Qwest, Cisco, Juniper,

Indiana University

Hierarchical network model• International – GTRN?• National – Abilene• State/Regional – CENIC/CALREN2, SURA/SoX• Metro/Campus

Gov’t Mission and University Split• ESnet, NREN, DREN – gov’t labs• Somewhat blurred: several gov’t labs connected to Abilene

– Reflects close ties between gov’t labs and U.S. univs.

Technical Outlook

Goal: support advanced/leading-edge/high-performance applications of the research and education community

Approach is technical direction that has pragmatic benefit to applications

• Illustration: Internet2 Quality of Service Work–Premium Service experience

• Raw HDTV/IP – single UDP flow of 1.5 Gbps (Seattle Washington DC over Abilene)

Technical/Economic

Unique window in time for fiber assets• Cause: fiber glut, bankruptcies and telcos in distress • Within a year, opportunity on national scale closes?• Hedge against a regression to ‘bad old days’ of monopolies

Technically, getting fiber means controlling the network down to layer 1 (0?)

• Would allow deployment of different wavelengths for differentiated networks (high perf advanced services, network research, more general EDU access)

• Path to doing optical switching when it makes sense

Technically and economically, we see this emerging chronologically from bottom of hierarchy to top

Optical network project differentiation

Distance scale (km)

Examples Equipment

Metro < 60

UW(SEA),

USC/ISI(LA)

Dark fiber & end terminals

State/

Regional

< 500 (LH)

(ULH: <2000)

I-WIRE (IL),

CENIC ONI,

I-LIGHT (IN)

Add OO

amplifiers

Extended

Regional/

National

500

TeraGrid,

NG Abilene,

PLR

Add OEO

regenerators

& O&M $’s

National Fiber Facility

Research and education community investment in national-scale fiber assets

• Discussions among a number of partners in US ongoing– “National Light Rail” – being led by members of Internet2

community – CENIC, the Pacific NorthWest Gigapop and other partners

– SURA – focused on specific bankruptcy opportunity

– UCAID is a participant in both efforts

• Once the national fiber footprint (~15,000 km) is obtained, significant investments in ULH optronics and ongoing maintenance/operations are required

Economic/Political Issues

Current Abilene infrastructure funded by universities

• With important initial seed money from NSF to universities

Expect to follow partnership model to extent possible for national fiber facility

• Corporate partnership essential for ongoing maintenance on fiber plant & co-location and next generation optronics

• Interestingly, optronics vendors now are becoming aware of the enterprise (non-carrier) market for their WAN gear

US government support critical• Cyber Infrastructure report from NSF

www.internet2.edu