Present and Future Networks an HENP Perspective Present and Future Networks an HENP Perspective Harvey B. Newman, Caltech HENP WG Meeting Internet2 Headquarters, Ann Arbor October 26,

Next Generation Networks for Experiments u Major experiments require rapid access to event samples and subsets from massive data stores: up to ~500 Terabytes in 2001, Petabytes by 2002, ~100 PB by 2007, to ~1 Exabyte by ~2012. è Across an ensemble of networks of varying capability u Network backbones are advancing rapidly to the 10 Gbps range: Gbps end-to-end requirements for data flows will follow u Advanced integrated applications, such as Data Grids, rely on seamless “transparent” operation of our LANs and WANs è With reliable, quantifiable (monitored), high performance è They depend in turn on in-depth, widespread knowledge of expected throughput u Networks are among the Grid’s basic building blocks è Where Grids interact by sharing common resources è To be treated explicitly, as an active part of the Grid design u Grids are interactive; based on a variety of networked apps è Grid-enabled user interfaces; Collaboratories

LHC Computing Model Data Grid Hierarchy (Ca. 2005) Tier 1 Tier2 Center Online System Offline Farm, CERN Computer Ctr ~25 TIPS FNAL Center IN2P3 Center INFN Center RAL Center Institute Institute ~0.25TIPS Workstations ~100 MBytes/sec ~2.5 Gbps Mbits/sec Physicists work on analysis “channels” Each institute has ~10 physicists working on one or more channels Physics data cache ~PByte/sec ~2.5 Gbits/sec Tier2 Center ~2.5 Gbps Tier 0 +1 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier2 Center Tier 2 Experiment CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2 Tier0/(  Tier1)/(  Tier2) ~1:1:1

Baseline BW for the US-CERN Transatlantic Link: TAN-WG (DOE+NSF) Plan: Reach OC12 Baseline in Spring 2002; then 2X Per Year

Transatlantic Net WG (HN, L. Price) Bandwidth Requirements [*] [*] Installed BW. Maximum Link Occupancy 50% Assumed The Network Challenge is Shared by Both Next- and Present Generation Experiments

Total U.S. Internet Traffic Source: Roberts et al., 2001 U.S. Internet Traffic Voice Crossover: August /Year 2.8/Year 1Gbps 1Tbps 10Tbps 100Gbps 10Gbps 100Tbps 100Mbps 1Kbps 1Mbps 10Mbps 100Kbps 10Kbps 100 bps 1 Pbps 100 Pbps 10 Pbps 10 bps ARPA & NSF Data to 96 New Measurements Limit of same % GDP as Voice Projected at 4/Year

AMS-IX Internet Exchange Throughput Accelerated Growth in Europe (NL) Hourly Traffic 8/23/ Gbps 2.0 Gbps 1.0 Gbps 0 Monthly Traffic 4X Growth from

GriPhyN iVDGL Map Circa US, UK, Italy, France, Japan, Australia Tier0/1 facility Tier2 facility 10 Gbps link 2.5 Gbps link 622 Mbps link Other link Tier3 facility u International Virtual-Data Grid Laboratory è Conduct Data Grid tests “at scale” è Develop Common Grid infrastructure è National, international scale Data Grid tests, leading to managed ops (GGOC) u Components è Tier1, Selected Tier2 and Tier3 Sites è Distributed Terascale Facility (DTF) è Gbps networks: US, Europe, transoceanic Possible New Partners è Brazil T1 è Russia T1 è Pakistan T2 è China T2 è …

Abilene and Other Backbone Futures u Abilene partnership with Qwest extended through 2006 u Backbone to be upgraded to 10-Gbps in three phases: Complete by October 2003 è Detailed Design Being Completed Now è GigaPoP Upgrade start in February 2002 u Capability for flexible provisioning in support of future experimentation in optical networking è In a multi- infrastructure u Overall approach to the new technical design and business plan is for an incremental, non-disruptive transition u Also: GEANT in Europe; Super-SINET in Japan; Advanced European national networks (DE, NL, etc.)

TEN-155 and GEANT European A&R Networks GEANT: from 9/01 10 & 2.5 Gbps TEN-155 OC12 Core Project: European A&R Networks are Advancing Rapidly

National Research Networks in Japan SuperSINET è Start of operation January 2002 è Support for 5 important areas: HEP, Genetics, Nano Technology, HEP, Genetics, Nano Technology, Space/Astronomy, GRIDs Space/Astronomy, GRIDs è Provides k 10 Gbps IP connection k Direct inter-site GbE links k Some connections to 10 GbE in JFY2002 HEPnet-J è Will be re-constructed with MPLS-VPN in SuperSINET IMnet è Will be merged into SINET/SuperSINET Tokyo Osaka Nagoya Internet Osaka U Kyoto U ICR Kyoto-U Nagoya U NIFS NIG KEK Tohoku U IMS U-Tokyo NAO U Tokyo NII Hitotsubashi NII Chiba IP WDM path IP router OXC ISAS

STARLIGHT: The Next Generation Optical STARTAP StarLight, the Optical STAR TAP, is an advanced optical infrastructure and proving ground for network services optimized for high-performance applications. In partnership with CANARIE (Canada), SURFnet (Netherlands), and soon CERN. u Started this Summer u Existing Fiber: Ameritech, AT&T, Qwest; MFN, Teleglobe, Global Crossing and Others u Main distinguishing features: è Neutral location (Northwestern University) è 40 racks for co-location è 1/10 Gigabit Ethernet based è Optical switches for advanced experiments k GMPLS, OBGP u 2*622 Mbps ATMs connections to the STAR TAP u Developed by EVL at UIC, iCAIR at NWU, ANL/MCS Div.

NL SURFnet GENEVA UK SuperJANET4 ABILENE ESNE T MREN It GARR-B GEANT NewYork Fr Renater STAR-TAP STARLIGHT DataTAG Project u EU-Solicited Project. CERN, PPARC (UK), Amsterdam (NL), and INFN (IT) u Main Aims: è Ensure maximum interoperability between US and EU Grid Projects è Transatlantic Testbed for advanced network research u 2.5 Gbps wavelength-based US-CERN Link 7/2002 (Higher in 2003)

Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly Statistics on 155 Mbps US-CERN Link Mbps Used Routinely BW Upgrades Quickly Followed by Upgraded Production Use

Throughput Changes with Time u Link, route upgrades, factors 3-16 in 12 months u Improvements in steps at times of upgrades è 8/01: 105 Mbps reached with 30 Streams: SLAC-IN2P3 è 9/1/01: 102 Mbps reached in One Stream: Caltech-CERN  See edu/monitoring/bulk/ Also see the Internet2 E2E Initiative:

Caltech to SLAC on CALREN2 A Shared Production OC12 Network u SLAC: 4 CPU Sun; Caltech: 1 GHz PIII; GigE Interfaces u Need Large Windows; Multiple streams help u Bottleneck bandwidth ~320 Mbps; RTT 25 msec;  Window > 1 MB needed for a single stream u Results vary by a factor of up to 5 over time; sharing with campus traffic CALREN2

Max. Packet Loss Rates for Given Throughput [Matthis: BW < MSS/(RTT*Loss 0.5 )] u 1 Gbps LA-CERN Throughput Means Extremely Low Packet Loss è ~1E-8 with standard packet size u According to the Equation a single stream with 10 Gbps throughput requires a packet loss rate of 7 X 1E-11 with standard size packets è 1 packet lost per 5 hours ! u LARGE Windows è 2.5 Gbps Caltech-CERN  53 Mbytes u Effects of Packet Drop (Link Error) on a 10 Gbps Link: MDAI è Halve the Rate: to 5 Gbps è It will take ~ 4 Minutes for TCP to ramp back up to 10 Gbps u Large Segment Sizes (Jumbo Frames) Could Help, Where Supported u Motivation for exploring TCP Variants; Other Protocols

Key Network Issues & Challenges Net Infrastructure Requirements for High Throughput Net Infrastructure Requirements for High Throughput è Careful Router configuration; monitoring è Enough Router “Horsepower” (CPUs, Buffer Space) è Server and Client CPU, I/O and NIC throughput sufficient è Packet Loss must be ~Zero (well below 0.1%) k I.e. No “Commodity” networks è No Local infrastructure bottlenecks k Gigabit Ethernet “clear path” between selected host pairs k To 10 Gbps Ethernet by ~2003 è TCP/IP stack configuration and tuning is Absolutely Required k Large Windows k Multiple Streams è End-to-end monitoring and tracking of performance è Close collaboration with local and “regional” network engineering staffs (e.g. router and switch configuration).

Key Network Issues & Challenges None of this scales from 0.08 Gbps to 10 Gbps k New (expensive) hardware k The last mile, and tenth-mile problem k Firewall performance; security issues Concerns k The “Wizard Gap” (ref: Matt Matthis; Jason Lee) k RFC2914 and the Network Police; “Clever” Firewalls k Net Infrastructure providers (Local, regional, national, int’l) who may or may not want (or feel able) to accommodate HENP “bleeding edge” users k New TCP/IP developments (or TCP alternatives) are required for multiuser Gbps links [UDP/RTP ?]

Internet2 HENP WG [*] u To help ensure that the required è National and international network infrastructures (end-to-end) è Standardized tools and facilities for high performance and end-to-end monitoring and tracking, and è Collaborative systems are developed and deployed in a timely manner, and used effectively to meet the needs of the US LHC and other major HENP Programs, as well as the general needs of our scientific community. are developed and deployed in a timely manner, and used effectively to meet the needs of the US LHC and other major HENP Programs, as well as the general needs of our scientific community. è To carry out these developments in a way that is broadly applicable across many fields u Forming an Internet2 WG as a suitable framework [*] Co-Chairs: S. McKee (Michigan), H. Newman (Caltech); Sec’y J. Williams (Indiana); With thanks to Rob Gardner (Indiana )

Network-Related Hard Problems “Query Estimation”: Reliable Estimate of Performance k Throughput monitoring, and also Modeling k Source and Destination Host & TCP-stack Behavior Policy Versus Technical Capability Intersection k Strategies: (New Algorithms) k Authentication, Authorization, Priorities and Quotas Across Sites k Metrics of Performance k Metrics of Conformance to Policy è Key Role of Simulation (for Grids as a Whole): “Now Casting” ?

US CMS Remote Control Room For LHC US CMS will use the CDF/KEK remote control room concept for Fermilab Run II as a starting point. However, we will (1) expand the scope to encompass a US based physics group and US LHC accelerator tasks, and (2) extend the concept to a Global Collaboratory for realtime data acquisition + analysis

Networks, Grids and HENP è Next generation 10 Gbps network backbones are almost here: in the US, Europe and Japan k First stages arriving in 6-12 months è Major International links at Gbps in 0-12 months è There are Problems to be addressed in other world regions è Regional, last mile and network bottlenecks and quality are all on the critical path è High (reliable) Grid performance across network means k End-to-end monitoring (including s/d host software) k Getting high performance toolkits in users’ hands k Working with Internet E2E, the HENP WG and DataTAG to get this done è iVDGL as an Inter-Regional Effort, with a GGOC k Among the first to face and address these issues

Agent-Based Distributed System: JINI Prototype (Caltech/NUST) r r Includes “Station Servers” (static) that host mobile “Dynamic Services” r r Servers are interconnected dynamically to form a fabric in which mobile agents can travel with a payload of physics analysis tasks r r Prototype is highly flexible and robust against network outages r r Amenable to deployment on leading edge and future portable devices (WAP, iAppliances, etc.) Z Z “The” system for the travelling physicist r r Studies with this prototype use the MONARC Simulator, and build on the SONN study See See Station Server Station Server Station Server Lookup Service Lookup Service Proxy Exchange Registration Service Listener Lookup Discovery Service Remote Notification

6800 Hosts; 36 (7 I2) Reflectors Users In 56 Countries Annual Growth 250%