Transcript Standard Operational Info

Internet2
Intel Partnership Planning Meeting
November 19,2001
What Is Internet2?
A project of the university community
working with our corporate colleagues
and government to close the gap
between the potential and reality of the
Internet
2
Internet2 Universities
188 Universities as of November 2001
3
Internet2 Mission
Develop and deploy advanced network
applications and technologies,
accelerating the creation of tomorrow’s
Internet.
4
Internet2 Goals
Enable a new generation of applications
Re-create leading edge R&E network
capability
Transfer technology and experience to
the global production Internet
5
Today’s Internet Doesn’t
Provide reliable end-to-end performance
Encourage cooperation on new
capabilities
Allow testing of new technologies
Support development of revolutionary
applications
6
Why University Leadership?
The Internet came from the academic
community
• Stanford -- the Internet protocols
• NSFNet -- the scaled-up Internet
• CERN -- the WWW protocols
• University of Illinois -- the Web browser
Universities’ research and education
mission require an advanced Internet
and have demonstrated they can
develop it
7
Technology Transfer
Conduits
Collaborating on advanced applications
Deploying pre-commercial infrastructure
and protocols
Establishing expertise and human
capital
Large-scale proof of concept
8
Internet Development Spiral
Commercialization
Privatization
ANS/Core
Today’s Internet
PSI
AOL
UUNet
MichNet
SURANet
InternetMCI
NYSERNet
Intelligent
Networks
GigaBit
Testbeds
MBone
Research and
Development
Source: Ivan Moura Campos
ARPANet
NSFNet
NGI
Internet2
Partnerships
9
Internet2 Activities and Focus
Areas
Advanced Network Infrastructure
Middleware
Engineering
Advanced Applications
End-to-End Performance
Advanced Network Management
Partnerships
10
Internet2 Activities and Focus
Areas
Advanced Network Infrastructure
11
Internet2 Network of the Future
Current state of Abilene
Evolution of optical networking
Next phase of Abilene
12
Abilene background & milestones
Abilene is a UCAID project in partnership with
•
•
•
•
•
Qwest Communications
Nortel Networks
Cisco Systems
Indiana University
ITECs in North Carolina and Ohio
Timeline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Apr 1998: Project announced at White House
Jan 1999: Production status for network
Oct 1999: IP version of HDTV (215 Mbps) over Abilene
Apr 2001: First state education network added
Jun 2001: Participation reaches all 50 states & D.C.
Nov 2001: Raw HDTV/IP (1.5 Gbps) over Abilene
13
Abilene focus
Enabling innovative applications and services
not possible over the commercial Internet
Advanced service efforts
•
•
•
•
•
Multicast
IPv6
QoS
Measurement
Security
– DDoS detection efforts (Arbor Networks & Asta Networks)
14
Abilene status – November,
2001
IP-over-SONET (OC-48c) backbone
54 direct connections
• 3 OC-48c (2.5 Gbps) connections
• 22 will connect via at least OC-12c (622 Mbps) by year end
200+ primary participants
• All 50 states, District of Columbia, & now Puerto Rico
• 15 regional GigaPoPs support ~70% of participants
• 37 sponsored participants
15 state education networks (SEGPs)
• Collaboration of sponsoring member universities and
Abilene connectors
15
16
17
International peering
Transoceanic R&E bandwidths growing!
Key international exchange points facilitated
by Internet2 membership and the U.S.
scientific community
•
•
•
•
STARTAP  STAR LIGHT – Chicago
Pacific Wave – Seattle
AMPATH – Miami
New York City – EP under development
• CUDI - CENIC and Univ. of Texas at El Paso
International transit service
18
Measurement and DDoS
Traffic characterization (Ohio ITEC)
• Network utilization by SEGPs and Abilene ITN
• Abilene Scavenger Service policing
• GigaPoP pair hotspot identification
Passive measurement
• Planned for Indianapolis router backbone links
• Collaboration with SDSC
Distributed Denial of Service detection
• Strong IU Global NOC interest
• Asta Networks (UCSD/U of Washington roots)
• Arbor Networks (U of Michigan/Merit roots)
Data privacy and anonymity policy
19
Network of the Future:
Context for the next backbone
Computational science as an emerging
interdisciplinary field
• Bandwidth and distributed sensing capability as the next
critical parameters
– Complement CPU, memory & storage
• Increasingly distributed data collection and storage
• NSF Distributed Terascale Facility solicitation
Emergence of optical technologies
• Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM)
• Important distinction: optical transport vs. switching
Much new transcontinental conduit and fiber
in place; a lot of business plans abandoned…
• Glut of fiber & conduit – but not bandwidth
20
Current state of optical networking
Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM)
• Current systems can support >160 10-Gbps ’s (1.6 Tbps!)
• Optical growth can overwhelm Moore’s Law (routers)
Costs scale dramatically with distance
Three possible scenarios for the future
• Enhanced IP transport (higher BW and circuit multiplicity)
• Fine-grained traffic engineering
– p2p links between campuses, HPC centers, & Gigapops
• Physical manifestation of switched circuits (a la ATM SVCs)
Evolution of optical switching will be critical
Leading international efforts in R&E exploration
• The Netherlands, Canada, STAR LIGHT (Chicago)
21
National optical networking
options
1 - Incremental wavelengths
•
•
Provision 10-Gbps ’s from provider(s) in the same way
that SONET circuits are done for Abilene now
Exploit smaller incremental cost of additional ’s
2 - Dim Fiber
•
•
Acquisition of fiber IRU and subsequent O&M agreement
for inter-PoP services (amps, regenerators, DWDMs?)
National footprint of 1-2 fiber pairs
–
•
IRU would cost $10-20M
Most likely awaits the availability of lower-cost optical
transmission equipment
22
Future of Abilene
Original UCAID/Qwest MoU amended on
October 1, 2001
Extension of Qwest’s original commitment to
Abilene for another 5 years – 10/01/2006
• Originally expired March, 2003
Upgrade of Abilene backbone to optical
transport capability - ’s
• x4 increase in the core backbone bandwidth
– OC-48c SONET (2.5 Gbps) to 10-Gbps DWDM
• Capability for flexible provisioning of ’s to support future
point-to-point experimentation & other projects
23
Key aspects of the next backbone
IPv6
• Running natively concurrently with IPv4
• Replicate multicast deployment strategy
• Motivations
– Resolving IPv4 address exhaustion issues
– Preservation of the original End-to-End Architecture
– International collaboration
– Router and host capabilities
• Close collaboration with Internet2 IPv6 Working Group
Network resiliency
• MPLS/TE fast reroute or IP-based IGP fast convergence
Opportunity for new measurement capabilities
• Support of End-to-End Performance Initiative
24
Next generation network
deployment
October, 2001: Detailed technical design starts
February, 2002: PoP upgrades start
 deployment in three phases
• April, 2002 – Phase 1
• October, 2002 – Phase 2
• April, 2003 – Phase 3
October 2003 - Completion of 10-Gbps
upgrade
25
Network design overview
Overall next generation topology is
expected to be very similar to current
design
• Previous iterations to router locations
– Washington DC, Chicago, Sunnyvale, Houston
• Some differences expected due to Qwest DWDM
deployment
• Expect same number of backbone routers
26
Optical fanout
Next generation architecture: Regional & state
based optical networking projects are critical
• Three-level hierarchy: backbone, GigaPoPs, campuses
• CENIC ONI, I-WIRE, SURA Crossroads, Indiana, Ohio
• Pacific/Northwest Gigapop and PREN are relevant players
in the Northwest
Collaboration with the Quilt
• Regional Optical Networking project
Carrier DWDM access is now not nearly as
widespread as with SONET circa 1998
27
The Quilt
A UCAID project support regional advanced
networking initiatives
• 15 charter GigaPoPs
• EDUCAUSE and SURA
• Quilt GigaPoPs support over 70% of Abilene participants
Initial projects
• Commodity Internet Services
• Regional Optical Networking
• Measurement
Led by Wendy Huntoon (Pittsburgh SC)
28
Conclusions
• Abilene future
• UCAID’s partnership with Qwest extended through 2006
• Backbone to be upgraded to 10-Gbps in three phases
starting spring 2002
• Capability for flexible  provisioning in support of future
experimentation in optical networking
• Overall approach to the new technical design and business
plan is for an incremental, non-disruptive transition
•Follow-on network most likely will be
developed around national dark fiber facility
and will utilize next generation optical
transport technology
29
For more information
Web:
www.internet2.edu/abilene
E-mail: [email protected]
30
Internet2 Activities and Focus
Areas
Engineering Emphases
31
Engineering:
Advanced Functionality
Multicast
IPv6
QoS
32
Internet2 Multicast
Kevin Almeroth, Univ California Santa Barbara, chair
Increasingly pervasive high-quality deployment of native
IP multicast throughout the Internet2 infrastructure
Keeping an eye on SSM
Implications of SSM on scalability, manageability
Adapting applications to make use of SSM
Clarifying the application story
Internet2's multicast infrastructure is a valuable sand
box in which to test the value of new multicast
applications
33
34
Internet2 IPv6
Dale Finkelson, Univ Nebraska,
Michael Lambert, PSC, co-chairs
Build the Internet2 IPv6 infrastructure
Currently, based on v4-over-v6 tunnels
Planned as first-class service with the coming 10
Gb/s upgrade of Abilene
Educate campus network engineers to support IPv6
Explore the Motivation for IPv6 within the Internet2
community
Make IPv6 'real' within the university community (and to
our students)
35
36
Internet2 QoS
Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2 staff, chair
QBone Premium Service
Hard priority service for selected streams
Very hard due to need for policing/administration
Scavenger Service
Voluntary less-than-best-effort service
Enables unconscionable bulk data transfers without
threatening performance of best-efforts traffic
Other 'non-elevated' services
E.g., delay- vs loss-sensitive best effort service
Interoperability without policing / administration
37
Internet2 Measurements
Matt Zekauskas, Internet2 Staff, chair
Define architecture:
Usage
Active Measurements of Performance
Passive Measurements
Uniform Access to Results
Contributing to Measurement Infrastructure for the End-toend Performance Initiative
38
Active Measurements
within Abilene
Surveyors with:
Active delay/loss measurements
Ad hoc throughput tests
39
Application to Performance
Debugging
40
Application to Performance
Debugging
41
Divide and Conquer
Systematically identify/isolate the
network segment at fault
Can we make this systematic and
(eventually) automated?
42
Internet2 Activities and Focus
Areas
End-to-End Performance
43
Why the
End-to-End Performance Initiative?
Even with high bandwidth
network links, the Internet2
community often does not see
expected performance.
44
The Wizard Gap
45
The E2Epi Mission
To enable the researchers, faculty,
students and staff who use high
performance networks to obtain optimal
performance from the current
infrastructure on a consistent basis.
Raw
Connectivity
Applications
Performance
46
True End-to-End Experience
•User perception
•Application
•Operating system
•Host IP stack
•Host network card
•Local Area Network
•Campus backbone
network
•Campus link to regional
network/GigaPoP
•GigaPoP link to Internet2
national backbones
EYEBALL
APPLICATION
STACK
JACK
NETWORK
...
...
...
...
•International connections
47
The Problem
Applications
Developer
Hey, this is not
working right!
LAN
Administrator
Others are
getting in ok
Not our problem
Talk to the other guys
Applications
Developer
LAN
Administrator
Everything is
AOK
System
Administrator
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
The computer
Is working OK
System
Administrator
No other
complaints
Gigapop
How do you solve
a problem along a path?
Looks fine
Gigapop
Backbone
All the lights
are green
We don’t see
anything wrong
The network is lightly loaded
48
First Steps
Workshop in Ann Arbor on 9 January,
2001
• 40+ participants
• Each participant provided a short paper on
“What does E2EPerformance Mean?”
• Planned agenda was not used in order to
respond to more pressing issues from
participants.
• Design team formed to create an overall vision
paper.
49
Areas of the Initiative
Applications
Host/OS Tuning
Measurement Infrastructure
Performance Improvement Environment (PIE)
Operations and Human Communications
Performance Evaluation and Review
Framework (PERF)
50
Applications
•Work with specific application communities to
help solve their performance problems.
• High Energy Physics
• Medical Sciences – Visible Human Project
•Use a few key, general purpose applications
for performance testing.
• FTP
• Video Conferencing
51
Host/OS Tuning
•Web100 has a leading role
•Provide Best Practices for getting the most
from your computer.
•Locate or build tools for Host/OS
performance diagnostics.
•Work with OS vendors on tuning capabilities
•Work with computer vendors on Internet2
Performance Packages.
52
Measurement Infrastructure
•Bring together current measurement
efforts and projects in the community.
•Establish an End-to-End Measurement
Infrastructure from the intersection of
these works.
•Create diagnostic tools to determine the
health of the network and locate
performance problems.
53
Standard Operational Info
Applications
Developer
Applications
Developer
Ops Info
Ops Info
LAN
Administrator
System
Administrator
Ops Info
Ops Info
Ops Info
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
System
Administrator
Ops Info
Ops Info
Ops Info
Gigapop
Information from
All Parts of the Network
LAN
Administrator
Gigapop
Ops Info
Backbone
54
Standard Operational Info
End-to-End Analyzer
Applications
Developer
Applications
Developer
Ops Info
Ops Info
LAN
Administrator
System
Administrator
Ops Info
Ops Info
Ops Info
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
System
Administrator
Ops Info
Ops Info
Ops Info
Gigapop
Know the Health
of the Network
LAN
Administrator
Gigapop
Ops Info
Backbone
55
Standard Operational Info
Apps Tuning
End-to-End Analyzer
Applications
Developer
Applications
Developer
Ops Info
Ops Info
LAN
Administrator
System
Administrator
Ops Info
Ops Info
Ops Info
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
System
Administrator
Ops Info
Ops Info
Ops Info
Gigapop
Applications
Adapt to the
Network
LAN
Administrator
Gigapop
Ops Info
Backbone
56
Performance Improvement
Environment (PIE)
•Develop a dynamic environment where
collaboration and information sharing will
happen.
•Identify, collect and disseminate appropriate
information for end-to-end related information.
•Include success stories,measurement
statistics, reference materials, measurement
tool documentation.
•Include pointers to materials already
developed by other communities.
57
Operations and Human
Communications
Establish communications among common
interest groups
•
•
•
•
•
System administrators
LAN administrators
Campus NOCs
GigaPoP
Application support staff
Establish communications between groups for
operations and problem resolution.
58
Groups of Common Interest
I don’t know how to
solve this problem!
I do! I do!
Applications
Developer
Applications
Developer
LAN
Administrator
LAN
Administrator
System
Administrator
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
Gigapop
Provide a means
of communications
System
Administrator
Gigapop
Backbone
Let them share
experiences.
59
Find a Solution?
Applications
Developer
Hmm, Time to
Check the PIE and
Talk to others
LAN
Administrator
Ah ha, an
Ethernet Duplex
problem!
Throughput OK
It is slow
for others too!
Applications
Developer
LAN
Administrator
Everything is
Still AOK
System
Administrator
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
Performance
OK here
System
Administrator
Not a bottleneck
At this point
Gigapop
A System to Check a
Specific Problem
Gigapop
Backbone
All the lights
are green
Yup. Duplex
Does not
Agree!
We don’t see
anything wrong
The network is still
lightly loaded
60
Can You Go Direct to the Problem?
How can you tell where is the problem?
Need a tool to tell you:
• Where the problem is.
• The type of problem
• Who to contact to get it fixed
Terry Gray, University of Washington
“We Need a Finger Pointing Tool”
61
Gray Finger Pointing Tool
Finger Pointing
Tool Time!
Applications
Developer
Applications
Developer
LAN
Administrator
LAN
Administrator
System
Administrator
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
Gigapop
System
Administrator
Gigapop
Locate the Problem
Gray Finger Pointing Tool
Terry Gray
University of Washington
Backbone
62
Gray Finger Pointing Tool
Finger Pointing
Tool Time
OK, I’ll fix it
Applications
Developer
Applications
Developer
LAN
Administrator
System
Administrator
LAN
Administrator
You ARE the
Weakest Link!
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
Gigapop
System
Administrator
Gigapop
Backbone
63
Performance Evaluation and
Review Framework (PERF)
Establish a framework for resolving
performance problems
• Finger Pointing Tool
• Provide known solutions by using the PIE
• Tap community knowledge by facilitating group
communications
• Coordinate a team of experts to solve hard
problems
64
The Hard Problems
Applications
Developer
Hey, Its is not
working again!
LAN
Administrator
Others are
getting in ok
I don’t know
Applications
Developer
No clue here
LAN
Administrator
I’m stumped
System
Administrator
Campus
Networking
Campus
Networking
I don’t know
what is wrong
System
Administrator
This is strange
Doh!
Gigapop
What if no
one has the answer?
Need a Tiger Team of Experts
to Research the Problem
Gigapop
Backbone
I am
Cluefully
Challenged
We can’t figure
it out
It looks normal here
65
Anticipated Partners
Faculty and discipline communities
Campuses
GigaPoPs
International partners
Research projects in performance
Internet2 corporate members
Federal labs and agencies
66
Calls For Participation
Identify core applications and services
Seek stories and best practices
• Current Call for Experiences
Seek participants in the various work areas
• Internet2 E2Epi Measurement Workshop
Tempe, AZ, 27-28 January 2002
• Campus Participation in E2Epi
67
Internet2 Organization Role
Staffing
• Cheryl Munn-Fremon, Initiative Director
• Russ Hobby, Technical Architect
• George Brett, Information Architect
• Lisa Wilberding, Communications Coordinator
• Terri Saarinen, Program Assistant
68
For More Information
E2Epi
• [email protected]
• http://www.internet2.edu/e2epi
69
Internet2 Activities and Focus
Areas
Advanced Network Management
70
Advanced Network Management
Layer 2 QueryProtocol
Steven Wallace
Mark Meiss
Indiana University Advanced Network
Management Laboratory
71
Presentation Overview
Why is there a need for layer 2
visualization
Why use a proxy agent?
Why host the proxy in the router?
How does this work?
72
The Need for Layer 2 Visualization
Many end-to-end performance problems
are caused by defects in the endsystem’s broadcast domain
• Frequently caused by duplex mismatches
Topology of broadcast domains typically
not known
Hop by hop analysis requires you to
know the hops
73
Why Use a Proxy Agent To
Implement this Protocol?
Frequently network engineers from
“other” organizations assist in network
troubleshooting
Rather than open SNMP access to
some other organization, develop a
service and related protocol to allow a
remote engineer to safely determine the
broadcast domain topology and health
74
Why Host the Proxy in the Router?
The router is in the path of the probe
(which is in the form of a traceroute
probe), and will automatically route the
packet to the general purpose CPU due
to the expired TTL
The router “knows” something about the
broadcast domain and is a good point of
instrumentation.
75
How Does Layer 2 Query Protocol
Work?
Assumes broadcast domain made up of
SNMP managed switches that support the
standard bridge MIB
Switches discovered via an IP broadcast
SNMP query
ARP information retrieved for all of the switch
SNMP agents by querying the router
Subsets of the Ethernet forwarding tables are
retrieved from the switches SNMP agents
Topology is calculated
76
The Protocol
Initial request looks like a traceroute probe
with the addition of a special signature and
three arguments: client’s IP address, port
number, and initial query sequence number
Router-based agent establishes a TCP
connection to the client on the given port
and sends the initial query sequence
number
Client and agent exchange commands over
the TCP connection. Responses from the
router are encoded in XML
77
A Working Client Implemented in Java
78
More Internet2 Information
On the Web
• www.internet2.edu
Email
• [email protected]
79
Internet2 Contact Information
Guy Almes: [email protected]
Jill Arnold: [email protected]
Steve Corbato: [email protected]
Ted Hanss: [email protected]
Russ Hobby: [email protected]
Doug Van Houweling: [email protected]
Steve Wallace: [email protected]
80
www.internet2.edu