1. Deploying and Testing Networking Innovations in California Brian Court bac@cenic.org UC San Diego, CalIT2 February 26, 2013 1

2. CalREN Architecture  Dark fiber backbone throughout California  Cisco DWDM optronics support up to 32 waves on each segment  100GE path Los Angeles – Bay Area – Seattle in partnership with Pacific Northwest GigaPOP and Internet2 2

3. 3

4. Multiple L2/L3 Networks  CalREN/DC – “Production” network. California-wide intranet with transport to commodity Internet. Designed for high availability with sufficient capacity for current/projected needs  CalREN/HPR – High-Performance Research network. Layer-3 with connectivity to NRNs (Internet2, NLR, ESnet, DREN, etc.) and international networks. Designed for high performance with ample headroom for on-demand experiments/demos. State-wide Science DMZ.  CalREN/HPR-L2 – Layer-2 network with connectivity to Internet2 ION/AL2S, NLR FrameNet, Pacific Wave, WRN 4

5. Campus Access  Access via dark fiber, supplemented where needed for redundancy with telco circuits  10GE common though not ubiquitous  100GE being delivered to several R1s in the next several months  Exception to normal last-mile pricing model to encourage early adoption  Will provide 100GE L2 access to Internet2, ESnet 5

6. COTN  California OpenFlow Testbed Network  Funded via GENI Solicitation 3, which sought to encourage OpenFlow deployment into the RONs  10GE ring with switches in LA, Sunnyvale, Sacramento, with GENI stack. GENI rack to be installed in by summer.  Campus access via HPR-L2 or direct connection  Brocade MLX-E switches chosen for HPR compatibility 6

7. Challenges  Excellent pricing and support from Brocade  …for code that doesn’t quite work yet  Brocade actively solicited guidance on desired functionality (but at the time we didn’t know what that was)  First non-beta, non-NDA code received just prior to GEC 14 (July 2012), lacked significant functionality needed for planned demo with UCSC researchers  Current code lacks ability to have simultaneous L2/L3 flows; fix expected soon  Breaks ARP 7

8. We Built It And They Haven’t Come (Yet)  Both HPR-L2 and COTN have had slow uptake rates  The networking effect (nobody’s connected because there’s nobody to connect to because nobody’s connected)  Early levels of OpenFlow functionality  Access cost (dedicated wave to HPR-L2 historically an institutional cost)  100GE pricing program should address much of this  Please talk to us if you have applications that could make use of this infrastructure 8

9. Questions? Brian Court bac@cenic.org 714-220-3435 9