CA*net 4 Open Grid Services for Management of Optical Networks CENIC Workshop May 6, 2002

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Intra-Carrier Solutions Enabled by the OIF NNI Erning Ye Nortel Networks.
Advertisements

Electronic Visualization Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago EVL Optical Networking Research Oliver Yu Electronic Visualization Laboratory University.
CANARIE – CA*net 3 The Customer Empowered Networking Revolution Background Papers on Gigabit to The Home and.
Photonic TeraStream and ODIN By Jeremy Weinberger The iCAIR iGRID2002 Demonstration Shows How Global Applications Can Use Intelligent Signaling to Provision.
June Canadas National Optical Internet.
Why is optical networking interesting?
CANARIE CA*net 4 Update CA*net 4 Design and OBGP documentation
1 On the Management Issues over Lambda Networks 2005 / 08 / 23 Te-Lung Liu Associate Researcher NCHC, Taiwan.
MPLS and GMPLS Li Yin CS294 presentation.
Electronic Visualization Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago Photonic Interdomain Negotiator (PIN): Interoperate Heterogeneous Control & Management.
NEW OUTLOOK ON MULTI-DOMAIN AND MULTI-LAYER TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Adrian Farrel
ONE PLANET ONE NETWORK A MILLION POSSIBILITIES Barry Joseph Director, Offer and Product Management.
Rationale for GLIF November CA*net 4 Update >Network is now 3 x 10Gbps wavelengths – Cost of wavelengths dropping dramatically – 3 rd wavelength.
An evolutionary approach to G-MPLS ensuring a smooth migration of legacy networks Ben Martens Alcatel USA.
Future Optical Internet ATM will play a key role Different Protocol Stacks Integrated to provide different size bandwidth pipes and CoS HDWDM OC-3084 OXC.
Giving users control Designing the Future 2005 Sydney, 6 April 2005 Tel:
End to end lightpaths for large file transfer over fast long-distance networks Jan 29, 2003 Bill St. Arnaud, Wade Hong, Geoff Hayward, Corrie Cost, Bryan.
OBGP: A mechanism for optical peering and lightpath trading George M. Porter Sahara Retreat UC Berkeley January 2002.
CANARIE “CA*net 4 Customer Empowered Networking” Tel:
Networks, Grids and Service Oriented Architectures eInfrastructures Workshop.
Optical Networks for the Rest of Us “Customer Empowered Networking” NANOG 17 – Montreal Background Papers on Gigabit to The.
CANARIE CA*net 4 Design Document Last Revised April Version OBGP documentation and latest version.
Circuit Services - IPTV Christian Todorov Internet2 Fall Member Meeting October 9, 2007.
Why is optical networking interesting? Cees de Laat
CANARIE “The Critical Role Universities will play in the Future Evolution of the Internet”
Open Source Web Services Peer to Peer Networking and Canada’s Innovation Agenda Bill St. Arnaud CANARIE Inc
CANARIE Web services architecture for management of customer owned optical networks
Impact of “application empowered” networks >The semi-conductor revolution reduced CAPEX and OPEX costs for main frame computer >But its biggest impact.
TERENA Networking Conference 2004, Rhodes, Greece, June Differentiated Optical Services and Optical SLAs Afrodite Sevasti Greek Research and.
UCLP Roadmap Bill St. Arnaud CANARIE Inc –
CA*net3 International Transit Network (ITN) Service Internet2 International Task Force Meeting Oct 29, Atlanta, Georgia tel:
User Managed End-To-End Lightpath Provisioning Over CA*net 4 Jing Wu, Scott Campbell, J. Michel Savoie, Hanxi Zhang, Gregor v. Bochmann, Bill St. Arnaud.
HEPiX, CASPUR, April 3-7, 2006 – Steve McDonald Steven McDonald TRIUMF Network & Computing Services Canada’s National Laboratory.
Optical Networks Infrastructure Tal Lavian. - 2 Optical Service and Applications Area of interest Need for building new services utilizing agile optical.
CA*net 4 International Grid Testbed Tel:
Update on CA*net 4 Network
Rick Summerhill Chief Technology Officer, Internet2 Internet2 Fall Member Meeting 9 October 2007 San Diego, CA The Dynamic Circuit.
HOPI: Making the Connection Chris Robb 23 June 2004 Broomfield, CO Quilt Meeting.
What is not and is User Controlled LightPaths (UCLP)? JT Vancouver 2005 Hervé Guy Monday
Damir Pobrić, Sr. Network Engineer update Joint Techs Workshop Minneapolis, MN – 12 February 2007.
Delivering Circuit Services to Researchers: The HOPI Testbed Rick Summerhill Director, Network Research, Architecture, and Technologies, Internet2 Joint.
Canada. Ottawa Fredericton St. John’s Yellowknife Iqaluit Charlottetown Quebec Regina Whitehorse Edmonton Victoria Winnipeg Halifax Calgary TorontoMontrealVancouver.
Université d’Ottawa University of Ottawa UCLPv2. 2 Agenda UCLP objectives UCLPv2: Definitions and use cases UCLPv2: Users and privileges.
Layer 1,2,3 networking on GrangeNet II Slide Pack Greg Wickham APAN 2006 ver 1.1.
UCLP International transit service Bill St. Arnaud CANARIE Inc –
1 Dynamic Service Provisioning in Converged Network Infrastructure Muckai Girish Atoga Systems.
Packet switching network Data is divided into packets. Transfer of information as payload in data packets Packets undergo random delays & possible loss.
Dynamic Lightpath Services on the Internet2 Network Rick Summerhill Director, Network Research, Architecture, Technologies, Internet2 TERENA May.
Optical Architecture Invisible Nodes, Elements, Hierarchical, Centrally Controlled, Fairly Static Traditional Provider Services: Invisible, Static Resources,
Points of pain Campus vs backbone Bill St. Arnaud
Initiative on Designing a New Generation Network APII Workshop 2006 Singapore July 18, 2006 Masaki Hirabaru NICT.
Networks, Grids and Service Oriented Architectures
APAN Lambda BoF 1 TWAREN/TAIWANLight : Research and Development 2005 / 01 /26 Te-Lung Liu.
INDIANAUNIVERSITYINDIANAUNIVERSITY HOPI: Hybrid Packet and Optical Infrastructure Chris Robb and Jim Williams Indiana University 7 July 2004 Cairns, AU.
Optical Networks and eVLBI Bill St. Arnaud
P2P is good news “will force us to look for new solutions architectures in resource manegment”
1 Optical networking TF-NGN, Athens October 16 th, 2001 Victor Reijs.
User-Controlled E2E Lightpath Provisioning over CA*net 4 May 26, 2003 Lead Participant: University of Ottawa Participant: Communications Research Centre.
MPLS Introduction How MPLS Works ?? MPLS - The Motivation MPLS Application MPLS Advantages Conclusion.
The Internet2 Network and LHC Rick Summerhill Director Network Research, Architecture, and Technologies Internet2 Given by Rich Carlson LHC Meeting 25.
Connecting to the new Internet2 Network What to Expect… Steve Cotter Rick Summerhill FMM 2006 / Chicago.
HOPI Update Rick Summerhill Director Network Research, Architecture, and Technologies Internet2 Joint Techs 17 July 2006 University of Wisconsin, Madison,
CAnet 4 LHC network resources US LHC network working group meeting Oct. 23, 2006 Thomas Tam CANARIE Inc.
The Internet2 Network and LHC Rick Summerhill Director Network Research, Architecture, and Technologies Internet2 LHC Meeting 23 October 2006 FERMI Lab,
An evolutionary approach to G-MPLS ensuring a smooth migration of legacy networks Ben Martens Alcatel USA.
Multi-layer software defined networking in GÉANT
SURFnet6: the Dutch hybrid network initiative
Establishing End-to-End Guaranteed Bandwidth Network Paths Across Multiple Administrative Domains The DOE-funded TeraPaths project at Brookhaven National.
UCLP Service Interface
CANARIE – CA*net 3 “The Customer Empowered Networking Revolution”
Presentation transcript:

CA*net 4 Open Grid Services for Management of Optical Networks CENIC Workshop May 6, 2002

Many e-Science Lambda Grids ATLAS Sloan Digital Sky Survey LHC ALMA

Current Optical Internets Big Carrier Optical Cloud using GMPLS or ASON for management of wavelengths for provisioning, restoral and protection Carrier controls and manages edge devices Customer ISP AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 AS 1 AS 4 AS 5 UNI NNI UNI NNI Optical VPN

The Problem  Current optical services are based on GMPLS, ASON or O-UNI  Current optical services are “edge to edge” within a single carrier cloud  Any changes to customer optical VPN in terms of bandwidth or topology requires release of current VPN and establishment of new optical VPN  Customer cannot make topology or bandwidth changes within their own VPN, or cross connect to another VPN within the cloud  No inter-domain optical routing protocol  Customer cannot set up an end to end wavelength across multiple domains  No optical services for end2end light path across the campus/enterprise and across the carrier cloud  All current optical services are based on a client –server model  No ability to exchange wavelengths and services on a peer to peer basis  University/Research community comes from the Internet world where services and networks are offered on a peer to peer basis  BGP multi-homing, mail servers, web, etc  Peer to peer has enabled the powerful Internet end to end principle

Customer Control of the Network?  There is a growing trend for many schools, universities and businesses to control and manage their own dark fiber  Can we extend this concept so that they can also own and manage their own wavelengths?  Will “empowering” customers to control and manage their own networks result in new applications and services similar to how the PC empowered users to develop new computing applications?

CA*net 4 Architecture Principle  End user control of the network  A network of point to point lightpaths where individual users can manage, control and route their own lightpaths and cross connects  Initial users expected to be high end grid applications  Web service architecture for customer management of lightpaths and cross connets  Uses OGSA or WSDL, UDDI, JXTA, J2EE, etc for optical management  Network becomes another Grid service  Lightpath owners can recursively sub partition their lightpaths and cross connects and give control to other entities  Lightpaths become “objects” complete with polymorphism, inheritance, classes, etc – Object Oriented Networking

Networks are like Grids  Management of inter-domain networks face the same challenges as management of Grids  Grids allow shared usage of resources in different management domains  But more importantly (with web services architecture) allow for shared and distributed use of processes (in addition to resources)

Advantage of Web Services  Elimination of the protocol standards process!!  Functionality of a service is defined in WSDL as opposed to being “locked” into a standard  WSDL and SOAP make it easy to define new services and functionality without going through complex standards approval process  WSDL and SOAP can be bound to traditional API calls e.g. O- UNI to provide open interface to users  Web services will be the foundation of Grids and distributed computing  Allows for optical networks to be just another seamless service in the grid toolbox

Wavelength Assignment AS 1 AS 2 AS 5 AS Regional Network C Regional Network D University STAR LIGHT router Carrier A Carrier B LightPath switch

CA*net 4 Architecture Calgary Regina Winnipeg Ottawa Montreal Toronto Halifax St. John’s Fredericton Charlottetown Chicago Seattle New York CANARIE GigaPOP ORAN DWDM Carrier DWDM Thunder Bay CA*net 4 node) Possible future CA*net 4 node Quebec Windsor Edmonton Saskatoon Victoria Vancouver Boston

Initial Version of Mini-IX External Proxy Server CA*net 4 Proxy Server Standard CLI or TL1 interface Customer A and sub- partition Customer B Customer C OC192 Eastbound OC192 Westbound X X X OSPF OBGP Customer A signaling plane Subtended GbE to local GigaPOP Customer B signaling plane Grooming agents Switch Agents Customer C signaling plane Signal Control Plane Agents X X Customer A Proxy Server

e2e LightPaths  High end users (e.g Grids) can apply for their own end 2 end light path  Requirements:  Must demonstrate real need for required bandwidth  Must implement high performance kernels and IO process to take advantage of bandwidth  Must resolve bandwidth bottle necks across campus and local loop (funding may be available for this)  If demand is greater than supply then CANARIE may prioritize or implement charges  Examples (illustrative purposes only):  OC48 TRIUMF to CERN  CWDM across UBC campus and local loop to CA*net 4  OC48 light path to Chicago to connect to CERN  WestGrid Interconnection  SNO Interconnection to HPCVL

OBGP  Proposed new “web services” protocol to allow customer owned wavelengths to interconnect to each other at an optical switch  Optical switch is in effect a mini-IX  Use establishment of BGP or peers for process to establish light path cross connects  Allows customer to maintain routing policy on cross connect  Traditional BGP gives no indication of route congestion or QoS, but with DWDM wave lengths edge router will have a simple QoS path of guaranteed bandwidth  OBGP can use “optical” AS path to concatenate wavelengths across multiple AS to have continuous QoS path

OBGP transit Object Name Server AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 OBGP Agent Lightpath Agent

Connection Oriented Networking?  Connection oriented networking is not inherently bad  Connection oriented networks got a bad rap because of telco business model and ATM  Big advantage of Internet was not so much connectionless as the end 2 end principle  Because users had control of packets they could develop applications without getting permission  Services are also peer to peer and not client server  It is essential for QoS applications or high volume data transfers  Two approaches:  Establish end2end guaranteed bandwidth path over prioritized packets  Use underlying connection oriented circuits  Can we extend the Internet advantages to connection circuits?