1. CA*net 4 Open Grid Services for Management of Optical Networks CENIC Workshop May 6, 2002 Bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca

2. Many e-Science Lambda Grids ATLAS Sloan Digital Sky Survey LHC ALMA

3. Current Optical Internets Big Carrier Optical Cloud using GMPLS or ASON for management of wavelengths for provisioning, restoral and protection Carrier controls and manages edge devices Customer ISP AS 1 AS 2 AS 3 AS 1 AS 4 AS 5 UNI NNI UNI NNI Optical VPN

4. The Problem  Current optical services are based on GMPLS, ASON or O-UNI  Current optical services are “edge to edge” within a single carrier cloud  Any changes to customer optical VPN in terms of bandwidth or topology requires release of current VPN and establishment of new optical VPN  Customer cannot make topology or bandwidth changes within their own VPN, or cross connect to another VPN within the cloud  No inter-domain optical routing protocol  Customer cannot set up an end to end wavelength across multiple domains  No optical services for end2end light path across the campus/enterprise and across the carrier cloud  All current optical services are based on a client –server model  No ability to exchange wavelengths and services on a peer to peer basis  University/Research community comes from the Internet world where services and networks are offered on a peer to peer basis  BGP multi-homing, mail servers, web, etc  Peer to peer has enabled the powerful Internet end to end principle

5. Customer Control of the Network?  There is a growing trend for many schools, universities and businesses to control and manage their own dark fiber  Can we extend this concept so that they can also own and manage their own wavelengths?  Will “empowering” customers to control and manage their own networks result in new applications and services similar to how the PC empowered users to develop new computing applications?

6. CA*net 4 Architecture Principle  End user control of the network  A network of point to point lightpaths where individual users can manage, control and route their own lightpaths and cross connects  Initial users expected to be high end grid applications  Web service architecture for customer management of lightpaths and cross connets  Uses OGSA or WSDL, UDDI, JXTA, J2EE, etc for optical management  Network becomes another Grid service  Lightpath owners can recursively sub partition their lightpaths and cross connects and give control to other entities  Lightpaths become “objects” complete with polymorphism, inheritance, classes, etc – Object Oriented Networking

7. Networks are like Grids  Management of inter-domain networks face the same challenges as management of Grids  Grids allow shared usage of resources in different management domains  But more importantly (with web services architecture) allow for shared and distributed use of processes (in addition to resources)

8. Advantage of Web Services  Elimination of the protocol standards process!!  Functionality of a service is defined in WSDL as opposed to being “locked” into a standard  WSDL and SOAP make it easy to define new services and functionality without going through complex standards approval process  WSDL and SOAP can be bound to traditional API calls e.g. O- UNI to provide open interface to users  Web services will be the foundation of Grids and distributed computing  Allows for optical networks to be just another seamless service in the grid toolbox

9. Wavelength Assignment AS 1 AS 2 AS 5 AS 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 Regional Network C Regional Network D University STAR LIGHT router Carrier A Carrier B LightPath switch

10. CA*net 4 Architecture Calgary Regina Winnipeg Ottawa Montreal Toronto Halifax St. John’s Fredericton Charlottetown Chicago Seattle New York CANARIE GigaPOP ORAN DWDM Carrier DWDM Thunder Bay CA*net 4 node) Possible future CA*net 4 node Quebec Windsor Edmonton Saskatoon Victoria Vancouver Boston

11. Initial Version of Mini-IX External Proxy Server CA*net 4 Proxy Server Standard CLI or TL1 interface Customer A and sub- partition Customer B Customer C OC192 Eastbound OC192 Westbound X X X OSPF OBGP Customer A signaling plane Subtended GbE to local GigaPOP Customer B signaling plane Grooming agents Switch Agents Customer C signaling plane Signal Control Plane Agents X X Customer A Proxy Server

12. e2e LightPaths  High end users (e.g Grids) can apply for their own end 2 end light path  Requirements:  Must demonstrate real need for required bandwidth  Must implement high performance kernels and IO process to take advantage of bandwidth  Must resolve bandwidth bottle necks across campus and local loop (funding may be available for this)  If demand is greater than supply then CANARIE may prioritize or implement charges  Examples (illustrative purposes only):  OC48 TRIUMF to CERN  CWDM across UBC campus and local loop to CA*net 4  OC48 light path to Chicago to connect to CERN  WestGrid Interconnection  SNO Interconnection to HPCVL

13. OBGP  Proposed new “web services” protocol to allow customer owned wavelengths to interconnect to each other at an optical switch  Optical switch is in effect a mini-IX  Use establishment of BGP or peers for process to establish light path cross connects  Allows customer to maintain routing policy on cross connect  Traditional BGP gives no indication of route congestion or QoS, but with DWDM wave lengths edge router will have a simple QoS path of guaranteed bandwidth  OBGP can use “optical” AS path to concatenate wavelengths across multiple AS to have continuous QoS path

14. OBGP transit Object Name Server AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5 OBGP Agent Lightpath Agent

15. Connection Oriented Networking?  Connection oriented networking is not inherently bad  Connection oriented networks got a bad rap because of telco business model and ATM  Big advantage of Internet was not so much connectionless as the end 2 end principle  Because users had control of packets they could develop applications without getting permission  Services are also peer to peer and not client server  It is essential for QoS applications or high volume data transfers  Two approaches:  Establish end2end guaranteed bandwidth path over prioritized packets  Use underlying connection oriented circuits  Can we extend the Internet advantages to connection circuits?