2. Update on the TERENA Compendium, 2003 A talk about comparing apples with oranges in the NREN world TNC/CUC 2003, Session 7b4 Bert van Pinxteren, TERENA http://www.terena.nl/compendium

3. Compendium: product of the COM-REN project A project funded by the Information Society Technologies Programme of the Commission of the European Communities. This presentation does not represent the opinion of the European Community; the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing in this presentation. Compendium Review Panel: Lajos Bálint, Marko Bonac, Urs Eppenberger, Sabine Jaume-Rajaonia, Mike Norris.

4. A message for our sponsors… Total NREN budgets, EU and EFTA countries: 300 MEUR

5. … and what do they spend it on? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% UKERNA SWITCH RHnet LATNET CESNET SUNET UNINETT UNI-C HUNGARNET BELNET FUNET GRNET RESTENA RedIRIS SURFnet HEAnet FCCN ACOnet RENATER GARR Transmission capacity Equipment (switches, routers etc.)

6. Structure of talk Some new data and trends: –Core Capacity on the network; –Connectivity and traffic; –The projected spread of IPv6 Apples and oranges: some data and their problems: –Numbers of connected institutions; –Bandwidth for Universities; –Where is the ‘Digital Divide’? Questionnaire mongering Areas for further consideration

7. Core capacity, 2001 and 2002

8. Core capacity, 2002 and 2003

9. the case of Spain early 2002: star topology with 155 Mb to all regional centres; 2003: backbone at 2.5 Gb.

10. Core capacity, 2001 and 2002

11. Core capacity on the network, 2003

12. External connections, January 2003 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 RoEduNet LITNET RESTENA FREEnet EENet IUCC ARNES ULAKBIM FCCN CARNet ACOnet GRNET RIPN HUNGARNET PSNC SANET HEAnet RedIRIS CESNET SWITCH BELNET GARR RENATER DFN UKERNA NORDUnet Mb/s Others Peering/Internet Exchanges Other NRENs GEANT

13. Average external traffic load, January 2003

14. IPv6: the 6net countries

15. IPv6: predicted implementation Between now and 2005 Later or undecided Between now and 2005 Later or undecided No info provided

16. Number of connected institutions (1) FCCN Portugal: connects 8600 primary schools, 1700 secondary schools GRNET Greece: connects 2746 primary schools, 3664 secondary schools

17. Number of connected institutions (2)

18. Number of connected institutions (3) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 EstoniaLithuaniaFranceHungaryUnited Kingdom Slovenia UniversitiesInstitutes of higher/further education Research institutesSecondary schools Primary schoolsLibraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals)Government departments Others

19. Connected institutions and staff 0 900 EstoniaLithuaniaFranceHungaryUnited Kingdom Slovenia UniversitiesInstitutes of higher/further education Research institutesSecondary schools Primary schoolsLibraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals)Government departments Others 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total staff

20. So, what explains it? Perhaps… LevelPercentage of network levels paid through the NREN budget RENATERUKERNA External connections100 NREN backbone100 Access network95 Metropolitan or regional networks 85 Campus LANn/a

21. EU plus Norway and Switzerland, but minus Germany Bandwidth for Universities (1) ISDN or lower: ± the EU 0% Accession States 9% Other countries 12% up to 2 Mb/s: 37% 28% 30% *

22. Bandwidth for Universities (2) ± the EU Accession States Other countries > 10 Mb, ≤ 100 Mb : 23% 18% 14% 22% 18% 23% > 2 Mb, ≤ 10 Mb:

23. Bandwidth for Universities (3) ± the EU Accession States Other countries ≥ 1 Gb: > 100 Mb, < 1 Gb: 10% 15% 6% 12% 13% 10%

24. Caveats and questions… What is a University? How many researchers are at those Universities? How many students? … and what do they need??

25. but just as much within countries! It is certainly between countries…. So, where is the ‘digital divide’? 0% 9% 12% 37% 28% 30%

26. Questionnaire mongering: It’s fun to send questionnaires! For IPv6 For SERENATE For … ? But trying to get answers is a different story!

27. Compendium 2003: responses received (deadline: 7 March) By 15 March By 15 April Too late No contact No response (still trying!)

28. NRNs Feedback Request sent on 16th December 2002 11 of 28 NRNs have replied to our questionnaire From the remaining: –4 NRNs present in today –13 NRNs with no answer – Marian Garcia (marian.garcia@dante.org.uk)

29. Why don’t we… try to make the Compendium questionnaire shorter; but make it the ONE questionnaire that everybody answers; and tries to answer completely; work more closely with other projects, so that more people get more answers but with fewer questionnaires!

30. Role of the Compendium The fast train itself: GÉANT (DANTE) Preparing for the future: the SERENATE project (TERENA) Monitoring the progress: the Compendium (TERENA)

31. Developing the argument… Dany Vandromme, RENATER: “As example, I would mention the Compendium (…), which turned [out] to be extremely useful to RENATER, to provide my national authorities with (…)”

32. Developing the argument further Can we develop some (dynamic) norms for what should be available for a student, a professor, a researcher? Have NRENs already done this? What are the ‘indicators of tomorrow’? But before that… We need to try to double-check the data Need your ideas Check it out: http://www.terena.nl/compendium