Transcript Document

HelsinkiOpen.net
Helsingin Alueverkkoyhdistys (ry)
Petri Krohn
1
© Petri Krohn Lappenranta.ppt / 3 Aud 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Helsingin Alueverkkoyhdistys
• Helsingin Alueverkkoyhdistys = Helsinki Neighborhood Networking Association
• “Fiber-optic Community Networking”
• Grass root activity to build access networks
•
Membership open to individuals and businesses
• Terminology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
Alueverkko = Neighborhood Area Network, Residential Access Network
Seutuverkko = Regional Network
Taloverkko, taloyhtiöverkko = house network?
Asunto-osakeyhtiö = Housing Co-operative
Kunnallinen vuokra-asunto = Council Housing
Pysäköintiyhtiö, palveluyhtiö = Parking & Services Co-op
Kimppaliittymä = Subscriber co-operative
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
HelsinkiOpen
• HelsinkiOpen
•
•
"Open access" residential access network
Open.net business model
• Start of in two Helsinki neighborhoods, Ruoholahti and Pikku-Huopalahti
•
•
•
Both neighborhoods built in 1990’s.
Homogenous construction
Cat5 cabling missing
• Activities focused on building "house networks" in housing co-operatives
• Co-operation with area parking & services co-ops
•
Use of underground parking facilities for right-of-way
• Status August 2004: 500 apartments wired
•
•
3
Goal for Aug 2005 5000 apartments connected to Ethernet
Most connected to neighborhood area network
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Neighborhood Area Network
• Residential access network
• Near by buildings connected with short links
• Open Access network
•
•
Not an ISP but an Ethernet Service Provider (ESP)
Open to all Internet service providers
• Equally open to all Internet users in area
•
•
•
Residential
Commercial
Businesses
• Subscribers of network
•
•
•
•
Housing co-operatives
Council housing & other rental property
Businesses
Schools?
• Users need not be directly connected
•
•
4
A NAPT router can serve individual buildings, one IP address shared by many users
Service is paid by subscriber co-op (usually same as housing co-op)
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Technologies
• Ethernet everywhere
•
Copper, fiber, WLAN, VDSL
• Layer 2 transparency
•
Initially apartments connected through NAPT router
• Techniques for connecting buildings
•
Fiber
•
•
•
•
dug in
in conduit leased from operator
802.11 WLAN-links
VDSL in leased lines
• Two very different roles for 802.11 wireless technology
•
•
Open access points
Point-to-point links to connect separate parts of Ethernet network
• Ring topology
•
5
Multi-mode fiber (cheap hardware)
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Zero-Budget Solutions
• Ethernet is cheap!
•
Hardware US $0,50 / user port
• Housing co-operatives:
•
Investments of up to 200 euros / apartment acceptable
• Council housing:
•
“Pay for your own electricity!”
• Digital Divide
•
6
Greatest need for services on places with poorest infrastructure
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Cabling Solutions
Commercialized:
• New Cat5e cable in old conduits, leave phone wires untouched
•
Cost of installation: 100 - 200 euros / apartment
• 10Base-T + POTS in 3-pair twisted pair telephone cable
•
Suitable cable found in all post 1995 construction + post 1980 row-houses
•
VMOHBU/MHS 3 x 2 x 0,5
Experimental:
• 10Base-T + POTS in 2-pair twisted star-quad telephone cable
•
•
•
(MHS 1 x 4 x 0,5)
EtherSPLIT (US patent pending)
Normal DSL-filters can be used to separate Ethernet and voice
Future trend?
•
•
•
Abandon fixed line telephone (POTS/ISDN)
Use existing 2-pair cable for 10Base-T Ethernet
Utilize VoIP services for fixed telephony
•
7
2004: only 2/3 of apartments have fixed telephone connections
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Problems
• Cost of local communication network
•
•
•
90% right-of-way
9% cable and fiber
1% Switches and other active hardware
• Need critical mass
•
Heterogeneous ownership structure
•
•
•
•
8
Resident owned housing co-operatives
Council housing
Other rental apartment blocks (SATO, VVO, Insurance companies)
Getting rental landlords and council housing involved
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Model for Free Wireless Service
• Peer-to-peer (P2P) users create an increase in available bandwidth
• Wireless users need very little bandwidth
• => Bandwidth is available (for free)
• Greatest obstacle to opening access points is security
•
Urban myth has spammers roaming around looking for open access to exploit
• Free service needs authentication, can use any locally available ISP
• Radius server at radius.helsinkiopen.net
• Access control in NAPT router, m0n0wall
• “Tax” on ISPs utilizing open access network:
•
9
10% of bandwidth must be donated for free services.
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Virtual Networks
Technologies for separating service providers in an open
access network
10
© Petri Krohn Lappenranta.ppt / 3 Aud 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Parallel Trends
• Network Virtualization
• Open Access Networks
11
•
Same technology
•
Different motives
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Network Virtualization
• One central device for
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Access control
Authentication
firewall
bandwidth throttling
NAT
Routing
Traffic shaping
…
• Users are connected through virtual networks
• Examples (Finnish ISPs)
•
•
•
12
Saunalahti Freedom (VPN)
Sonera kiinteistö (PPPoE)
Campus networks
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Technologies for Virtual Networks
• Layer 3
•
Requires private IP address space (10.0.0.0) + routing
• Virtual Private Networks
•
•
Point to Point Tunneling Protocol (Microsoft)
IP Security (IPSec) IETF
• Layer 2
•
Requires transparent L2 network
• Virtual LANs
•
•
•
IEEE 802.1Q tags
Mapping of VLANs to SSID names in access points
802.1X access control
• Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE)
•
authentication & encryption
• Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)
•
13
authentication & encryption
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Which Technology to Choose?
• Which virtual networking technology should an open access network operator
choose to deploy?
• The choice is for the service provider to make, not the access network
• All technologies can be deployed simultaneously
• Requirements for Open Access Networks
•
•
•
14
Service providers must be able to build virtual networks with the technology of their
choose
Layer 2 transparency
IP routing for private network addresses
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Layer 2 transparency
• 802.1Q VLAN tags
• QoS (802.1p)
• Ethernet multicast
• Q-in-Q?
•
•
15
Needed in metro-scale open access networks & ESP business
Not needed in residential access networks
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net
Open Questions
• Telecommunications: service or infrastructure?
• VPN or PPPoE or 802.1Q? (Or neither?)
• Individual subscriptions with IP or collective subscriptions with NAPT?
• Wireless access: pay for bandwidth or provide authentication?
16
© Petri Kron / 3 Aug 2004 / Petri Krohn
HelsinkiOpen .net