Campus Focused Workshop on Advanced NetworkingCampus Focused Workshop on Advanced Networking

Paul Love

Chair, Topology Working Group

Campus Workshop

Houston

10-11 April 2002

Paul Love

Chair, Topology Working Group

Campus Workshop

Houston

10-11 April 2002

10 April 2002 2

Outline

Internet2 Engineering Objectives

Hopes for & Threats to End-to-End Performance

A few words on Abilene

10 April 2002 3

Engineering Objectives of Internet2

Provide our members with superlative networking

• Performance• Functionality• Understanding

Make superlative networking strategic to research & education

10 April 2002 4

End-to-End: Challenge, Aspirations & Threats

Support services of advanced networks E2E(eyeball2eyeball)

Performance• Current target: 80Mb/s across the country• Multiplies where possible

Functions• Multicast• IPv6• Quality of Service• Measurement• Security

10 April 2002 5

What are our Aspirations?

Switched 100BaseT + well-provisioned Internet2 networking @ 80 Mb/s (for now)

• But user expectations and experiences vary widely

• Don’t take the easy way out• Boost expectations & experiences - raise the bar

Raise the bar again – work hard to stay out there

10 April 2002 6

Threats

Distance BW = C x packet-size / ( delay x sqrt(packet-loss ))

(Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, CCR, July 1997)

Fiber: dirty connections, bad light/connectors

Switches: full/half duplex & 10/100 mismatches, head of line blocking

Routing: Asymmetric, increased distance

Provisioning: a “straw” somewhere

Host: OS & TCP stack, H/W, Apps

10 April 2002 7

Abilene: Current Core

10 April 2002 8

Abilene Network Map

Sacramento

Los Angeles

Washington

Abilene International PeeringSTAR TAP/Star LightAPAN/TransPAC, Ca*net3, CERN, CERnet, FASTnet, GEMnet, IUCC, KOREN/KREONET2, NORDUnet, RNP2, SURFnet, SingAREN, TAnet2

NYCMBELNET, CA*net3,

GEANT*,HEANET,

JANET, NORDUnet

Pacific WaveAARNET, APAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, TANET2

SNVAGEMNET, SINET, SingAREN, WIDE

LOSAUNINET

AMPATHREUNA, RNP2

RETINA (ANSP)

OC3-OC12

El Paso (UACJ-UT El Paso)CUDI

San Diego (CALREN2)CUDI

* ARNES, CARNET, CESnet, DFN, GRNET, RENATER, RESTENA, SWITCH, HUNGARNET, GARR-B, POL-34, RCCN, RedIRIS

09 January 2002

10 April 2002 10

Abilene: 10Gb/s Upgrade

10 April 2002 11

Raw HDTV/IP testing

Packetized raw HDTV (1.5 Gbps) • ISIe, Tektronix, & UW project/DARPA support

Connectivity and testing support• P/NW & MAX Gigapops, Abilene and DARPA Supernet, Level(3)

SC2001 public demo• November, 2001• SEA -> DEN via L(3)

OC-48c SONET

10 April 2002 12

Raw HDTV/IP Demo

DARPA PIs Meeting: SEA->DC area 1/6/02• 18 hrs of continuous, single-stream raw HD/IP• UDP jumbo frames: 4444 B packet size• Application level measurement

– 3 billion packets transmitted– 0 packets lost, 15 resequencing episodes

• e2e network performance – Loss: <8x10 -10 (90% confidence level)– Reordering: 5x10 –9

• Transcontinental 1-Gbps TCP (std 1.5 kB MTU) requires loss at the level of 3x10 –8 or lower

10 April 2002 13

Where things are at Present

Infrastructure of large capacity• Besides the HDTV/IP demos we have examples of 240Mb/s flows

• But flows aren’t predictable – even 40Mb/s• People don’t know what they should expect

10 April 2002 14

Why Care?

Faculty needs keep advancing:• Effective access to remote facility: quickly move large datasets. PPDG: 400 Mb/s to CERN by 2003

• Interactive access: video or control or VoIPVery low loss/jitter

We (in several senses) need to deliver

Low aspirations are dangerous to us, to our goals

10 April 2002 16

Baseline BW Requirements for the US-CERN Transatlantic Link

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Link Bandwidth (Mbps)

Bandwidth (Mbps) 310 622 1250 2500 5000 10000

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006

With thanks to Harvey B Newman, CIT

www.internet2.edu