Transcript Guy Almes Presentation

Internet2 Update
R/D and Infrastructure
Guy Almes
Internet2 Project
<[email protected]>
NANOG Meeting
Dearborn — 9 June 1998
Outline of the Talk
 Technical
Working Groups
 The Challenge of Delay-Bandwidth
Products
 Abilene Project Update
Applications and Engineering
Applications
Motivate
Enables
Engineering
Comments on Apps and
Plumbing
Advanced applications transform high-speed
plumbing into value
 Advanced plumbing enables advanced
applications

Profligate use of bandwidth, per se, does not
make an application ‘advanced’
 Megalomaniac plumbing, per se, does not make
the plumbing ‘advanced’

Technical Working Groups
IPv6
 Measurement
 Multicast
 Network
Management
 Network Storage

Quality of Service
 Routing
 Security
 Topology

IPv6
Chair: Dale Finkelson, Univ Nebraska
<[email protected]>
 Membership: Total 12; 9 .edu, 3 .com, 1 .gov
 Focus:



Explore the rôle that IPv6 might play in the
Internet2 project
Work with those interested in IPv6 to build IPv6
testbeds across the Internet2 structure, including
vBNS and Abilene
Measurement
 Chair:
David Wasley, Univ California
<[email protected]>
 Focus:

Places to measure:
 at campuses, at gigaPoPs, within interconnect(s)

Things to measure
 traffic utilization
 performance: delay and packet loss
 traffic characterization
One example measurement
technology
 IETF
IPPM WG defining one-way
delay
 Take all delay to be due to:
Propagation
 Transmission
 Queuing

 Variation
in delay suggests congestion
Multicast
 Chair:
vacant [Dave Meyer, Univ Oregon
still serving]

Nearing completion of naming a successor
 Membership:
Total 3; 3 .edu
 Focus: Make native IP multicast scalable
and operationally effective
Network Management
 Chair:
Mark Johnson, MCNC
<[email protected]>
 Membership: Total 4; 3 .edu, 1 .com
 Focus:
Common trouble ticket system
 How can all our interconnects and gigaPoPs
and universities appear to be a seamless
whole?

Network Storage
 Chair:
Micah Beck, Univ Tennessee
<[email protected]>
 Membership: Total 13; 9 .edu, 4 .com
 Focus: Distributed Storage
Infrastructure for Internet2
Replication
 Physical proximity
 Transparency

Quality of Service
 Chair:
Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2 staff
<[email protected]>
 Membership: Total 36; 17 .edu, 19 .com
 Focus: Multi-network IP based QoS





Relevant to advanced applications
Interoperability: carriers and kit
Scalable
Administratable and Measurable
Hosts, campus/gigaPoP/Interconnect routers/switches
Quality of Service Sketch
A
B
• Does the approach support advanced applications?
• Are there implementations that work? Only one?
• If cloud ‘A’ and cloud ‘B’ both implement QoS,
does the combined A+B catenation implement QoS?
QoS, continued
 Results
to date:
Requirements document
 Series of technical recommendations

 First
Internet2 Joint Applications/
Engineering QoS Workshop
Santa Clara, California
May 21-22, 1998
Hosted by Bay Networks
Routing
 Chair:
Steve Corbato, Univ Washington
<[email protected]>
 Membership: Total 48; 32 .edu, 16 .com
 Focus: Internal and External routing

Critical issues
 gigaPoP internal routing design


Explicit routing requirement (the “fish problem”)
Met at UCSD in January (21 attendees)
 gigaPoP external routing recommendations


Subscribers (Internet2 campuses)
National interconnects (vBNS, Abilene, and NGI
networks)
Security
 Chair:
Peter Berger, Carniege Mellon
Univ <[email protected]>
 Membership: Total 13; 13 .edu
 Focus:
Authentication
 Application to QoS
 Application to Digital Libraries

Topology
 Chair:
Paul Love, Internet2 staff
<[email protected]>
 Membership:
Total 16; 13 .edu, 2 .com, 1 .gov
 Focus: Topology of Internet2
Internal Internet2 Connections
 Internet2 with other Advanced Research
Networks

Summary
 Internet2’s
WGs focus on project’s
needs
 Complement IETF WGs
 Membership by invitation - welcome
participation by Internet2 corporate
members
Large Delay-Bandwidth Products
 As
the product of delay and bandwidth
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

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 *  packetloss)
Consider the implications for the
international
high-performance Internet
 packet-size
BW  1 / delay
BW  1 /  packet-loss
BW
Example: Delay
BW  C / delay
delay due to distance
original raw bandwidth
Example: Delay with fatter pipe
BW  C / delay
delay due to distance
more raw bandwidth
Example: Packet Loss
 similar
phenomenon, but …
 to double bandwidth, you must
 cut packet loss by four
Abilene Update
 UCAID
Project
 Addresses infrastructure needs of
Internet2
Goals and Objectives
 Provide
high-quality, widely available
Interconnect among participating
gigaPoPs/universities
 Connect
to Internet2 members via
the vBNS and to other key research/
education sites via Internet2/NGIclass federal and non-US nets
Goals and Objectives, continued
 Support
QoS architecture as it
evolves
 Support other advanced functionality
as it evolves
 Maximize
Robustness
 Minimize Latency
 Provide Capacity to Avoid
Congestion
Evolution of Abilene with Time
 Phase
1: use of operational Qwest Sonet
 Phase 2: use of separate wavelengths
 Phase 3: use of separate fibers
 Allows
needs
capacity to grow with Internet2
Key Attributes
 IP
over Sonet
 Benefit from Qwest OC-48 Sonet capacity
and collocation sites
 Benefit from Nortel OC-192 Sonet kit and
Lucent fiber
 Benefit from Cisco GSR 12000 routers
Architecture: Core
 About
11 (up to 30) core nodes
Each located at a Qwest PoP
 Each with a Cisco 12008 router
 Rack also contains measurements/ management
computers

 Interior
lines connect core nodes
OC-12 and (eventually) OC-48 Sonet
 IP-over-Sonet interfaces

Subset of Route Map of Interest to Abilene
sttl
milw
chcg
syrc
bstn
dtrt
alby
clev
eugn
mpls
nycm
pitb
ipls
phil
scrm
slkc
dnvr
tpka
kscy
lsvl
wash
rcmd
nsvl
albq
rlgh
atln
anhm
phnx
elpa
hstn
nwor
tlhs
Attitude toward interior lines
 Robustness:
 Latency:
mesh plus Sonet
direct physical paths
 Capacity:
avoid congestion
Architecture: Access
 Access

node at many Qwest PoPs
Qwest Sonet switches needed equipment
 Access
lines connect from core node to
gigaPoP
Local part: gigaPoP to access node
 Long distance part: access node to core node
 IP-over-Sonet or IP-over-ATM possible
 OC-3 and OC-12 typical

One cost-sharing implication
 Long-distance
part of access line is
considered part of the ‘backbone’
 Thus,
number/location of core nodes
does not affect costs borne by
gigaPoP
One robustness implication
 Each
access line is Sonet
 Long-distance part (at least) will be
configured from protected Sonet ring
 Thus,
single access line can tolerate
a break in the long-distance part of
the access line
OK, so where’s the map?
 Self-selection
is key
 Each gigaPoP will determine where,
when, at what speed it connects
 Detailed
topology will be based on
engineering considerations