1. Internet2: Which rôle for Europe? Guy Almes, Internet2 Project Dresden, Germany 6 October 1998

2. Outline  The challenge before us  Technical developments Measurements Quality of Service Others  Infrastructure Abilene, vBNS, gigaPoPs, and campuses International  The rôle for Europe

3. The challenge before us  Universities, by their nature, mix teaching and research collaborate with scholars at other universities  Thus, advanced applications for conferencing remote instrument access digital libraries  What networks will these need?

4. Applications and engineering Applications Engineering MotivateEnables

5. Large Delay-Bandwidth Products  As the delay-bandwidth product grows: The number of unacknowledged packets grows It becomes more difficult to sustain a steady stream of data from end to end  Several consequences: Need for direct physical paths Tradeoff between buffering and variation in delay

6. A pessimistic result from Mathis et al.  Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, "The Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm", Computer Communication Review, July 1997.  www.psc.edu/networking/papers/model_abstract.html  BW  C * packet-size / (delay *  packet-loss)

7. Example: Delay BW  C / delay delay due to distance original raw bandwidth

8. Example: Delay with fatter pipe BW  C / delay delay due to distance more raw bandwidth

9. Technical developments: Measurements  Motivation: Need for understanding Infrastructure at the cutting edge Notoriously hard-to-please users  Relation to other challenges Very wide area Very high speed Bursty applications

10. Three kinds of measurement  Traffic utilization e.g., MRTG  IETF IPPM measures, including one-way delay packet loss  Passive observation of user flows OC3MON.. OC12MON RTFM

11. Loci of measurement  At university boundaries  Between key ‘clouds’  Within clouds also, but this can vary  At end-systems also, in support of application developers  Examples from the Internet2 infrastructure...

12. Backbone ‘A’ Backbone ‘B’

13. Backbone ‘A’ Backbone ‘B’

14. Backbone ‘A’ Backbone ‘B’

15. One example: IPPM measurements in Abilene  Surveyor implementation of IPPM will be placed at each router node  This will permit understanding of one- way delay to within about 50 µsec  This will also support similar measurements for gigaPoPs and universities

16. Example One-way delay display

17. OC3MON: a family of passive measurement tools  Developed for the NSF/MCI vBNS effort  Examines packet headers of user traffic  Examples: nature of flows distribution of sizes of packets pattern of sources and destinations all of above on a per-application basis  Work remains to be done here

18. Technical developments: Quality of Service  Motivation: some advanced applications are intolerant of loss, variation if delay, and inconsistent bandwidth generous provisioning is not always possible  Relation to other challenges: diversity of infrastructure high-speed, wide-area, bursty flows

19. Consensus within Internet2 QoS Working Group  IETF diff-serv a key to scaling  Focus initially on “non-relative” services Premium the initial specific focus Other services later  Begin immediate testbed trials  Take an iterative approach

20. diff-serv Architecture BB Leaf Router (police, mark flows) BB Ingress Edge Router (classify, police, mark aggregates) Egress Edge Router (shape aggregates) Core routers Core routers Source Bandwidth Brokers (perform admissions control, manage network resources, configure leaf and edge devices) Destination

21. Initiation of the QBone effort  Goals: Grow the set of interoperable diffserv clouds Grow a community of participants Foster pre-standards interoperability Collaborate to solve problems  Participant Types Networks Network engineering Applications and middleware developers Corporate partners

22. CCIRN Working Groups  Measurements  Quality of Service  Meetings: Geneva: June 1998 Chicago: August 1998 Orlando: December 1998

23. Other key technical areas  Multicast  IPv6  Network Storage  Routing

24. Infrastructure: Abilene  Addresses growing needs of Internet2 for performance and functionality  Improves breadth of access  Tests notion of multiple ‘backbones’ within Internet2  Technical diversity: Abilene: IP/Sonet vBNS: IP/ATM

25. Abilene Topology: Jan-99 Seattle Kansas City Denver Cleveland New York Atlanta Houston Pittsburgh Minneapolis Columbus Washington Phoenix Raleigh Trent on Salt Lake City Wilmington Dallas New Orleans Lincoln New Haven Detroit Miami Westfield Nashville Philadelp hia Indianapolis Newar k Abilene Albuquerque Oklahoma City 28 Total Access Nodes 17 Directly Connected Participants Directly Connected ParticipantAccess NodeRouter Node Sacramento Oakland Eugene Los Angeles Anaheim Boston

26. Abilene Engineering and Goals  Very High Speed Connectivity Among Internet2 gigaPoPs, including vBNS Other federal ‘NGI’ networks Non-US advanced networks  Qualities Stressed: Reliability Low latency Effective NOC and Engineering teamwork

27. Abilene Architecture: Core  Router Nodes located at Qwest PoPs Cisco 12008 GSR ICS Unix PC: IPPM and Network Mgmt Cisco 3640 Remote Access for NOC 100BaseT LAN and ‘console port’ access Remote 48v DC Power Controllers  Initially, ten Router Nodes:

29. Seattle Kansas City Denver Cleveland New York Atlanta Houston Indianapolis Abilene Launch: Core Architecture Router Node Sacramento Los Angeles

30. Abilene Architecture: Access  Access Nodes Located at Qwest PoPs Sonet: Connects Local to Long-distance  Initially, about 120 Access Nodes: This list grows as the Qwest Sonet plant grows

31. Seattle Kansas City Denver Cleveland New York Atlanta Houston Pittsburgh Minneapolis Columbus Washington Phoenix Raleigh Trent on Salt Lake City Wilmington Dallas New Orleans Lincoln New Haven Detroit Miami Westfield Nashville Philadelp hia Indianapolis Newar k Abilene Albuquerque Oklahoma City Launch: With Access Nodes Access NodeRouter Node Sacramento Oakland Eugene Los Angeles Anaheim Boston Chicago

32. Schedule  Design work: Mar-98 and ongoing  Rack design/built: May-98 to Aug-98  Demo network installed: Sep-98  Remainder installed: Oct-98  Beta Period: 1-Nov-98  Production begins: 1-Jan-99

33. Seattle Kansas City Denver Cleveland New York Atlanta Houston Pittsburgh Minneapolis Columbus Washington Phoenix Raleigh Trent on Salt Lake City Wilmington Dallas New Orleans Lincoln New Haven Detroit Miami Westfield Nashville Philadelp hia Indianapolis Newar k Abilene Albuquerque Oklahoma City Abilene Demo Network: September 1998 Access NodeRouter NodeStar Tap Abilene Network Sacramento Oakland Eugene Los Angeles Anaheim Boston

34. Infrastructure: Other US Developments  GigaPoPs CalREN2: northern and southern California Great Plains Network Pacific Northwest GigaPoP  vBNS: continuing improvement planned OC-48 work multicast leadership  federal agency networks ESnet, NREN, etc.

35. Evolution of the NGIX idea  Exchange points appropriate for NGI / Internet2 and related networks  Initially: NASA Ames, Chicago (StarTap), and DC  Result of the JET: Joint Engineering Team

36. Infrastructure: International  Needs of applications: Bandwidth Latency Measurements Quality of Service Multicast  MOUs CANARIE NORDUnet SURFnet

37. The Rôle for Europe  Work with us on technical developments Measurements Quality of Service Others  Build European Infrastructure Support advanced applications Test technical ideas  Evolve international infrastructure