1 Distributed Monitoring CERNET's experience Xing Li

2 CERNET Transport Network

3 CERNET IP Backbone

4 CERNET Statistics l 38 GigaPops distributed in 36 cities, covering all the provinces in Mainland China. –11 national Pops are connected via multiple 2.5Gbps DWDM links –27 provincial Pops are connected via multiple 155Mbps SDH links l 1,500 education and research institutions connected –300 campus networks connect to their nearest Pops via 100Mbps-1Gbps links. –15 million users

5 CERNET Distributed Measurement l Provide the high performance, reliable IP backbone service l Survive from the network attack l Run based on self-funded model l Protect mission critical applications l produce research data

6 Comparison of Current Data and Tools l Netflow l Owamp (One-Way Latency) l Iperf l Traceroute l SNMP Interface Statistics l Internet2 Detective l Multicast Beacon l NTP Stratum 2 Server l Ping/Traceroute V6 Destination

7 Current Tools and Analysis l Throughput –SNMP interface –passive monitoring –httpd+wget l Delay and Loss –ICMP l Top 20 –passive monitoring l Multicast –Beacon

8 Passive Monitoring R R M2.1 s M2.2

9 Performance

10 Loss vs. Delay

11 CERNET HTTP Performance

12 Top20 Histogram

13 Multicast Beacon Monitoring

14 Correlation Analysis l Delay Matrix l Loss Matrix l Combined Pop Monitoring l Committed bandwidth http performance l Top 20 Warning

15 CERNET Delay Matrix

16 CERNET Loss Matrix

17 Pop Monitoring

18 Committed bandwidth http performance Global Internet CERNET Cx 20M 1G

19 Top20 Monitoring

20 Other Tools and Activities l Iperf l NTP l DNS l BGP l tcping l Out of Order Packet l Video Conference l CCERT

21 NTP

22 Address and Domains Report

23 IPv4/IPv6 BGP Analysis

24 tcping

25 Multicast Video Conference

26 CCERT

27 Comparison (1) l Netflow l Owamp (One-Way Latency) l Iperf l Traceroute l SNMP Interface Statistics l Internet2 Detective l Multicast Beacon l NTP Stratum 2 Server l Ping/Traceroute V6 Destination

28 Comparison (2) l Collection Today: –Iperf (Throughput) –OWAMP (1-Way Latency, Loss) –SNMP Data –Anonymized Netflow Data –Per Sender, Per Receiver, Per Node Pair –IPv4 and IPv6 l Collection in the Future –NTP (Data) –Traceroute –BGP Data –First Mile Analysis l Correlation Today: –“Worst 10” Throughputs –“Worst 10” Latencies l Correlation in the Future: –99 th Percentile Throughput over Time –Throughput/Loss for all E2E paths using a specific link –Commonalities among first mile analyzers –Sum of Partial Paths vs. Whole Path

29 Comparison (3) l Analysis Today: –Throughput over Time –Latency over Time –Loss over Time –Worrisome Tests? (Any bad apples in “Worst Ten”?) –“Not the Network” (If “Worst Ten” is good enough) l Analysis in the Future: –Latency vs. Loss –How good is the network? –Do common first mile problems exist? –Does a link have problems that only manifest in the long-haul? –Is the network delivering the performance required by a funded project?

30 Future Work l Expend to the CERNET member universities l IPv6 l New Tools l Data library l International collaboration –APAN –Abilene Observatory