T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

TransPAC2US-Asia Connectivity

Jim Williams – Indiana University

williams@indiana.edu

http://www.transpac2.net

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

TransPAC2 Overview

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

TransPAC2 Technical DetailsPhysical Network

• 10G Layer 3 network connection between the US and Asia– Asian connectivity via the APAN (and TEIN2)

infrastructures– US connectivity via the Pacific Wave Facility

• Juniper T320 and other associated hardware in Los Angeles

• Juniper T640 and other hardware in Tokyo

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

TransPAC2 Hardware/Circuit Plans Project Years 4-5

Insert a switch between the circuit and the router in LA (to balance the switch in Tokyo).

Offer Layer 2 VLAN services between APAN-LA/USA

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

TransPAC2 Networking Partners

• TransPAC2 Co-investigator partner – Internet2• TransPAC2 Asia regional partner – APAN

(http://www.apan.net)• TransPAC2 Japanese partners NICT and NII• TransPAC2 – EU TEIN2 partnership

http://www.tein2.net/•

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

TransPAC2 TOP 10 apps Significant aggregated (In/Out) flows between Institution 1 and Institution 2

One year aggregate data

Institution 1 Instituion 2 Protocol Approx. Pkts

WWW-http, https, http-alt (approximately equal stat significance)San Jose State University Tsinghua University, China TCP 64774MDana-Farber Cancer Inst. The Univ. of S & T of China TCP 64245MWuhan University, China DBCE1, AU TCP 62923MAPNIC Harvard University TCP 60808MUniversity of Tulsa Natl. Chengchi Univ., Taiwan TCP 64642MKorea Institute of S & T Pacific Northwest Gigapop TCP 68078M

FTP-data (approximately equal stat significance)Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab Seoul National University TCP 43623MChiyoda-ku, Tokyo NASA TCP 44945MNIH KRNIC-KR, Korea TCP 42698M

IRDMI (a lot of activity toward the beginning of the year, but tapered off)FUJITSU, Japan University of Maryland UDP 52876M

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

Significant IRNC-2005 Successes

1. Supporting science collaborations, both large and small. You have seen excellent examples of supporting large scale science collaborations. Not all IRNC supported science collaborations are >1Gbps. Pakistan is an excellent case in point.

2. Leverage. All IRNC projects are incredibly leveraged, usually by a factor of 10 or more. That is now SOP. IRNC projects should connect multi-country networks, or at minimum countries to US scientists

3. Quantitatively understanding more about network traffic (a.k.a. measurement) and routing. But, there is more work to do in these areas.

4. Understanding threats within network traffic (a.k.a. security). Unclear this is a success…it is an area that needs more emphasis

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

Interesting IRNC-2005 Side Effects

RENOG - (Research and Education Network Operators Group [CCIRN chartered])

South Asia SIG - (Sub-group of the Internet2 Developing NREN Group)

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

Supporting international connections and collaborations in

the future1. Supporting connections. Close IRNC service coordination and

collaborations yield valuable results. Measurement is an example and needs continued emphasis. Security needs more direct attention in the next solicitation. New inter-domain services require joint US-international development. This might be addressed by small, out-of-band awards or a within-project formal technical aspect.

2. Supporting collaborations. 2007 is not 2015. Science needs and network infrastructure capabilities will evolve. Linkage of networking efforts with the needs/requirements of science is critical. Coordination of US face to international science is equally critical. Integration of networking efforts with other international R/E networks will be required.

T

R

A

N

S

P

A

C

2

Jim Williams

Indiana University

williams@indiana.edu

Questions