1. Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative www.internet2.edu/e2e/ 11 January 2001 CSG Meeting

2. 2 E2E PI Goal To create a ubiquitous, predictable, and well- supported environment in which Internet2 campus network users have routinely successful experiences in their development and use of advanced Internet applications, by focusing resources and efforts on improving performance problem detection and resolution throughout campus, regional, and national networking infrastructures

3. 3 Context for E2E Perf  Internet2 member universities have access to high performance backbone networks  Now, under certain conditions within particular regional and local network environments, we can experience the full benefit of this infrastructure in the development and use of advanced applications

4. 4 Context, cont.  However, most of us experience a significant gap between the reality and potential of the national high-performance networking infrastructure

5. 5 Terminology Distinction  The phrase “End-to-End” has multiple meanings in several contexts  End-to-End Architecture  End-to-End Performance  Therefore, this initiative always will be referred as End-to-End Performance

6. 6 Performance Obstacles  End user  End system  Campus network  Campus network uplink  Peering points

7. 7 First Step  Workshop in Ann Arbor on Tuesday, January 9th  40+ participants  Each participant provided a short paper on “what does E2EPerf mean?”, others also contributed papers

8. 8 Summary of White Papers  Input focused on both technical and human factors: Developing the people infrastructure and managing communication and expectations is the real challenge Developing the measurement architecture and deploying it consistently is the real challenge

9. 9 Summary, cont.  Solutions must scale to a diversity of institution sizes and resource capabilities  Applications use must be routine and spontaneous without a reliance on experts  End-users need to understand what to expect and how to get it

10. 10 Summary of Discussion  Threw out the proposed plan/timeline  Identified problems to solve and sample action items  Proposed a new approach and timeline

11. 11 Ideas for Specific Actions  Repositories for ‘Best Practices’ and ‘War Stories’  Broader deployment of existing measurement capability  Development of new client performance assessment tool  Reference sites (beacons) for interesting applications  Repository of tools, including topology discovery

12. 12 Ideas, cont.  In parallel need to get the application users and supporters interested and involved  Need to focus on how we deal with the issue of support and response. How do we get the network and applications teams to work together? Do these campus apps team exist in enough places?  Look at existing trouble-ticket/problem reporting systems to review performance- related occurrences

13. 13 Anticipated Partners  Campuses  Discipline communities  GigaPoPs  NSF-sponsored engineering efforts NLANR Web100 Project – PSC/NCAR  Internet2 Corporate Members  Federal labs and agencies  …

14. 14 Next Steps  Convene a 6-10 person design team to Develop the program specifications Define the Initiative Provide guidance to the community  Design team will produce a white paper by the March Member Meeting  White paper leads to an April “Call for Partners” to work on specific deliverables.  Responses due in May, when kick-off meeting will be scheduled

15. 15 Next Steps, cont.  We need to seek sources of funding. Internet2 plans to invest significant resources this year: 5-7 FTE, $1.5M

16. 16 Areas of Debate or Concern  Is the project “wall jack to wall jack” or “eyeball to eyeball”?  What does ubiquity mean?  Campus or community focus?  Funding

17. 17 More Info...  www.internet2.edu  ted@internet2.edu  apps.internet2.edu/talks/  Ted Hanss Internet2 3025 Boardwalk Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 +1.734.913.4256

18. www.internet2.edu