Kansei Connectivity Requirements: Campus Deployment Case Study Anish Arora/Wenjie Zeng, GENI Kansei Project Prasad Calyam, Ohio Supercomputer Center/OARnet Jay Young, OSU Enterprise Networking The Quilt GENI Workshop July 22 nd 2010

Topics of Discussion Connectivity Requirements Overview (Prasad) Campus Researcher Perspectives (Wenjie) Campus Network Provider Perspectives (Jay) Regional Network Provider Perspectives (Prasad) Current Status and Next Steps (All) 2

Connectivity Requirements Overview GENI vision to create an overlay network with QoS guarantees on top of existing infrastructure between project sites across the U.S. –End-to-end Layer 2 (L2) connectivity can provide isolation, precision measurements, topology control, and experiment repeatability –One proposal: Create static and/or dynamic end-to-end layer 2 tunnels between sites connected by NLR and Internet2 backbones OSU Kansei project wants L2/L3 connectivity with several sites –Researcher Web-portal is hosted at the OSU Campus –OSU testbed is located at Columbus Wood Products (CWP) building –Federated aggregate collaborator site is at Wayne State University –ORCA Clearinghouse site for Kansei users is located at RENCI 3

Connectivity Requirements Overview (2) Connectivity requirements being addressed by a diverse team –Campus Researchers: Kansei team at OSU and WSU, RENCI –Campus Networking Providers: OSU CSE Department Networking, OSU Campus Networking, WSU Campus Networking, –Regional Network Providers: OARnet, MERIT –National Network Providers: NLR, GENI ClusterD Net (GCDnet) Coordination of connectivity implementation discussions was a challenge as the group size increased –Isolated communications were unproductive –Conference calls and a project progress document were effective –A connectivity diagram helps! 4

(Desired) Connectivity Diagram 5 VLAN path planned: OSU – OARnet – MERIT – Starlight – GCDnet – NLR – RENCI

Campus Researcher Perspectives KanseiGenie: a federated sensor network testbed Current sites: –Kansei at OSU and NetEye at WSU –Also cloned by Oklahoma State University Has been open to users from both inside and outside for experimentation for the past 3 years L2/L3 connectivity brings us: –Scalability Experiments at scale (across multiple testbeds) –Low delay Stitching multiple sensor network testbeds by simulating low-delay radio link Near real time interaction with experiments –Larger bandwidth Data hub: output of one experiment serves as input for another 6

Federated and Stitched Experimentation 7

Campus Network Provider Perspectives OSU’s campus network was designed with three aggregation points and no L2 connectivity between them Typical questions given the desire for this connectivity have not been answered –Functional design requirements –What protocols, services are going to transit this network Security concerns –MAC address learning –Loop prevention –Have not see standard answers to these questions OSU has a cost recovery model for networking services. Internally, network connections need to be paid for BUT researchers haven’t added this to grant proposals, etc. 8

Campus Network Provider Perspectives OSU has faced technical issues: –L2VPNs are not well supported on our line cards –Setting up additional interfaces and VLAN trunks has more cost across our campus –QinQ is not a technology that we have deployed, before we roll new services we want to test it in the lab –How many research groups desire to use this service and how that could be built is unknown –Today a single VLAN is being extended to one site on our infrastructure out of one of our aggregation points –CSE Department might extend this to another site on their own –Next department that wants a connection will be back at the drawing board 9

Regional Network Provider Perspectives Evaluated both Internet2 ION and NLR FrameNet options –NLR option pursued due to current ORCA connectivity –QinQ suggested, but targeted only in the next version of Sherpa Identified GCDNet as the L2 connections aggregator for GENI Cluster D projects L2 connectivity architecture changed due to GCDNet –WSU directly connects to GCDNet instead of connecting to OSU –MERIT connects to GCDNet and OSU connects to MERIT GCDNet paying for MERIT connection port fees –OSU saved additional fees on one of the ports at OSU CWP Only investing in 2 100Mbps ports for L2/L3 connectivity to ORCA 10

How we stand with others… (Adapted from Joe Mambretti GEC8 Talk Slides) 11

Current Status and Next Steps VLAN translation along the end-to-end path being implemented to avoid conflicts of VLAN IDs –Agreed upon VLAN numbers: WSU (1810), OSU (1804) –NLR VLAN number issue handled by GCDNet OARnet has setup the VLAN configuration, and also has a dummy device at the port to respond to Ping probes OSU and WSU VLANs plumbed through MERIT to GCDNet switch VLAN paths are expected to be in place on a long-term basis Plans for a multi-site Cluster D connectivity demonstration at GEC9 –Extensive testing expected to occur in October timeframe 12

13 Thank you for your attention !