1 The PingER Project: Measuring the Digital Divide PingER Presented by Les Cottrell, SLAC At the SIS Show Palexpo/Geneva December 2003

2 History of the PingER Project Early 1990’s: SLAC begins pinging nodes around the world to evaluate the quality of Internet connectivity between SLAC and other HEP Institutions. Around 1996: The PingER project was funded making it the first Internet end-to-end monitoring tool available to the HEP community. Today: Believed to be the most extensive Internet end-to-end performance monitoring tool in the world PingER

3 PingER Today Today, the PingER Project includes 35 Monitoring- hosts in 12 countries. They are monitoring Remote- hosts in 80 countries. PingER THESE COUNTRIES COVER 75% OF THE WORLD POPULATION AND 99% OF THE INTERNET CONNECTED POPULATION!!!

4 Methodology Internet 11 ping request packets each 30 mins Remote Host (typically a server) Monitoring host > ping remhost Ping response packets Measure Round Trip Time & Loss

5 PingER Architecture There are three types of hosts Remote-hosts: hosts being monitored REMOTE PingER

6 PingER Architecture There are three types of hosts Remote-hosts: hosts being monitored Monitoring-hosts: make ping measurements to remote hosts Monitoring REMOTE PingER

7 PingER Architecture There are three types of hosts Remote-hosts: hosts being monitored Monitoring-hosts: Make ping measurements to remote hosts Archive/Analysis- hosts: gather data from Monitoring-sites, analyze & make reports Archive Monitoring REMOTE PingER

8 Performance is improving Developed world improving factor of 10 in 4-5 years S.E. Europe, Russia, catching up India & Africa worse off & falling behind Developing world 3-10 years behind Worldwide performance Many institutes in developing world have less performance than a household in N. America or Europe

9 Current State – Aug ‘03 (throughput Mbps) Within region performance better –E.g. Ca|EDU|GOV-NA, Hu-SE Eu, Eu-Eu, Jp-E Asia, Au-Au, Ru- Ru|Baltics Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia all bad Bad < 200kbits/s < DSL Poor > 200 < 500kbits/s Acceptable > 500kbits/s, < 1000kbits/s Good > 1000kbits/s Monitoring Country Remote regions

10 Loss Comparisons with Development (UNDP) Positive correlation with Human Development or GDP

11 Network Readiness Index vs Throughput NRI from Center for International Development, Harvard U. NRI correlates reasonably well with Network Readiness Internet for all focus A&R focus NRI Top 14 Finland 5.92 US 5.79 Singapore 5.74 Sweden 5.58 Iceland 5.51 Canada 5.44 UK5.35 Denmark 5.33 Taiwan5.31 Germany5.29 Netherlands 5.28 Israel 5.22 Switzerland 5.18 Korea 5.10

12 Typical uses Troubleshooting  Discerning if a reported problem is network related  Identify the time a problem started  Provide quantitative analysis for Network specialists  Identifying step functions, periodic network behavior, and recognize problems affecting multiple sites.  Setting expectations  Identifying need to upgrade  Providing quantitative information to Policy makers & Funding agencies  Seeing the effects of upgrades PingER

13 In Summary PingER provides ongoing support for monitoring and maintaining the quality of Internet connectivity for the world wide scientific community. Information is available publicly on the web www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/pingtable.pl PingER also quantifies the extent of the “Digital Divide” and provides information to policy makers and funding agencies. PingER

14 For More Information We need contacts in developing countries –(send to PingER: –www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/ eJDS – ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report, Jan03 – dec02www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper- dec02 Monitoring the Digital Divide, CHEP03 paper – The PingER Project: Active Internet Performance Monitoring for the HENP Community, IEEE Communications Magazine on Network Traffic Measurements and Experiments.The PingER Project: Active Internet Performance Monitoring for the HENP Community PingER