Internet2: Which rôle for Europe?
-
Upload
halla-moss -
Category
Documents
-
view
29 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Internet2: Which rôle for Europe?
Internet2:Which rôle for Europe?
Guy Almes, Internet2 Project
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