1. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk The Task The Plan The Experience The Lessons Peter Clarke Dept of Physics and Astronomy University College London The experience of Multicast Rollout in the UK

2. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk MULTICAST in a nutshell  Simple picture Source Receiver RP  A bit more than that Configuring “PIM-SM” Configuring “RP” Configuring MBGP /MSDP for inter-domain operation (thanks for diagrams borrowed form CISCO vi J.Couzens)

3. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk NorMAN YHMAN EMMAN EastNet External Links LMN Kentish MAN LeNSESWERN South Wales MAN TVN MidMAN Northern Ireland North Wales MAN NNW C&NL MAN GlasgowEdinburgh Warrington Leeds Reading London BristolPortsmouth EaStMAN UHI Network Clydenet AbMAN External Links FaTMAN Sites

4. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk The Task  Enable MULTICAST independently in all administrative domains  SuperJANET (SJ4) CORE  Regional Distribution Networks  Connected sites  Make domains talk to each other The Plan  UKERNA published a multicast connection plan  url: http://www.ja.net/development/multicast/index.html  Expected incremental evolution from Core outward  Expected established communication lines to be used  A scaleable approach  ….. but

5. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk The Killer Application  …then a killer application parachuted in: ACCESS GRID  Users wanted it to work yesterday  Some users did not appreciate complexity  Many “ill founded” frustrations bandied around... it forced the pace... !!!... Not necessarily a bad thing – as its still not all working... !!!

6. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk The “easy” bits  In some cases it worked straight away  SJ4 Core  Some Regional Networks  Some sites  Often where some combination of the following occurred:  Expertise already developed  PIM-SM already configured  Same vendor equipment ( but even then instruction manuals were not always right )

7. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk The “simple” problems  In some cases problems took longer to understand  Protocol mismatches  Firewalls – not many understand multicast  Inter-vendor incompatibilities  Concrete example: Firewall Unicast route Multicast route

8. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk The “difficult” problems  Some deployed equipment unable to support native multicast  Some still non understood inter-vendor problems  MPLS and Native Multicast don’t co-exist easily  One network is managed using MPLS.  Planned for a long time to use tunnels – but never really worked  Engineers have been working for months – possibly just solved !

9. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk Current Status ~ 9 months  Two regional networks not able to carry multicast yet  Some (few) key site networks still not working

10. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk Conclusion – the lessons Facts:  Widespread expertise/experience wasn’t there  Huge disparity between user expectation  reality  Equipment problems:  Some equipment not multicast capable  Firewalls  Some non understood inter vendor issues  Protocol problems:  MPLS  Incompatibilities in configurations

11. SERENATE meeting Brussels 17/18 Sept 2002 P.Clarke / clarke@hep.ucl.ac.uk Messages Non controversial  Put lots of effort into getting complex components deployed long before users want them. Possibly controversial  Its and end-to-end thing – so “locally connected” deployment not always best  Need systematic set of e2e commissioning tests Controversial  Sometimes need All people in one room at same time  Need FBNI (federal bureau of network investigation)