Transcript wp2 transmission technology study - CzechLight

SEEFIRE
CEF network design
(including cross-border fibre issues)
www.seefire.org
Stanislav Šíma
CESNET
The SEEFIRE project is co-funded by the European Commission under the FP6 IST contract no. 15817
Network construction and parts
(what is really our task)
Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners:
„If you construct something such as an idea, piece of writing or system,
you create it by putting different parts together.“
For network construction we need to elaborate specifications of:
Network services
Network building parts (elements)
Implementation of services by connecting elements
Elaboration of above specifications is called network design
Network design is semantically similar to computer design or electronic circuit
design, but big difference makes complexity and cost of some building parts:
Building elements, implementation and operation of large scale networks are procured
Procurement is long process (especially if public funding is used): e.g. 7-24 month (but
legal system in some countries is not so restrictive to research)
Returns and corrections of decisions could be very difficult or impossible in such
procurement process (details depend on procurement regulations in given country)
Result of one-way design proces is not optimal (in general case)….
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
2
Legacy procedure of REN design
(ISP for R&E community)
Decide about REN PoPs needed and then:
Procure SDH or lambda services
Procure „ISP-like“ equipment
Procure network operation and maintenance
The first goal is service for researchers (research in networking is secondary)
Main Advantages:
Relatively simple design and operation (we use large and matured building elements
and services, with guarantee)
Transparency for donators and users (element selection is the best in the current
commercial sense)
Main Weakness and Risk:
The „best in current commercial sense“ is not the best generally (monopoly or
dominant position of some vendors prevents it)
Construction simplicity and network reliability received are very expensive, i.e.
network is based on outdated technology, adaptation to user needs is far from
perfect, both CAPEX and OPEX are high
Vendors prevent some improvements of network after installation (to safe their
exclusive delivery position)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
3
New possibilities in REN design
Main source of innovation is optical technology
Fibres and fibre lighting devices
Free Space Optics (up to 2.5 Gb/s per line) with microwave backup
Change of P2P services by P2P fibres is first step only
New types of transmitters, receivers, amplifiers, gratings etc. are
available, some of them even with MultiSource Agreements
New network services are enabled, for example E2E lightpath on
demand, fibre switching, facilities based networking …
New architecture for cost-effectivness:
Overcome distances by light only (see CESNET2 and GEANT2 core)
OEO conversion and switches should be rare (use OADM and OXC)
Few routers (2-4) per NREN are sufficient (see Surfnet6 and Canet4)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
4
CEF Network approach
to REN design
Decide about REN PoPs needed and then:
Procure Dark fibres including optical first mile
Procure Open (multi-vendor) network equipment
Procure Network Integrator (if external support for design, deployment and operation is
needed)
The goal is still service for researchers, but role of research in design is stronger
CEF Network approach is field proved:
procurement of dark fibres instead services: proved by many NRENs, RONs, National
LambdaRail, partially GEANT2
procurement of open (multi-vendor) equipment: proved by SWITCH (including external design
support), CzechLight (including CESNET-made Optical Amplifiers), partially CESNET2
Many metropolitan CEF RENs has experience with network integration by own staff
Save own improvement freedom and independency on vendors
Save own ability to quick return and correct design (including retendering etc.)
Convince vendors in word and deed, that their task is changed
you need dedicated fibre instead of pacifier 
you will decide on devices suitable for network development, etc.
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
5
Main strategies
for SEE NRENs development
Short characteristics of main possibilities for SEE NRENs:
„Safe way“: Step-wise repeat NREN development seen in other countries
(it is slow, quite expensive and preserves gap)
„Brute force way“: Use big investment to make „the second instance“ of
some leading NREN (this approach is limited mainly by missing first mile
fibres and by unsufficient funds)
„Innovation way“: Strong use of research results to solve NREN design
problem. Search for cost-effective technology successively deployed in
testbeds and tested in NRENs (or prepared for future NRENs)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
6
Possible Government Support
for R&E
Remove telecommunication regulations for research and education
Simplify tendering regulations for research and education
Establish fibre lines for research and education as infrastructure
donated by state (such as roads)
Support municipalities deploying first mile fibres for research and
education
It helps to national R&E and to national development. It helps to EU
development too (by better connecting of SEE research capacity)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
7
GEANT2 design characteristics
GEANT2 is hybrid network: Lambda services (Layer2 OEO services) is
offered to participants besides IP service (Layer3 services)
Small changes in network topology, local movings of GEANT PoPs
requested by nRENs
Mixed procurement of services and dark fibres
Extensive comparisons of dark fibres to services costs, despite that
reasons for dark fibres are strategic rather than financial, and result of
comparison strongly depends on question:
How many lambdas will users need in next years???
GEANT2 is CEF network in the sense, that core is on leased dark fibres
and lighting equipment is owned by DANTE
Separated procurement of transmission system and switching equipment:
one vendor selected for both (no CEF-like open result)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
8
Our example presented
on TNC 2004 Rhodes
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
9
Initial GEANT2 topology
(dark fibre core footprint)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
10
GEANT2 and SEE countries
GEANT2 will be one of world-leading continent-wide R&E network
using dark fibres (another one will be National LambdaRail after
merging with Abilene2 in USA)
Further work is strongly needed, for example:
GN2 procurement of dark fibres failed for connection of some countries,
despite that dark fibres where available (good offer was missing), for example
to Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania: re-tendering in GN2 is
possible
Transmission and switching equipment are from single-vendor: multi-vendor
interoperability problems must be solved on demarcation line GEANT2-NRENs
Important and feasible tasks:
acquire international dark fibres to GN2 countries Romania, Bulgaria and
Greece
prepare international dark fibres to remaining SEEFIRE countries
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
11
International dark fibre
acquiring and using
Cross border fibre (CBF) issue
GCBF are GEANT2 cross border fibres, connecting GEANT2 PoPs
RCBF are Regional corss border fibres, connecting neighbours NRENs
In principle, by means NRENs fibres and RCBF is possible to
implement European-wide lambdas and GCBF looks redundant
Situation is of course much more complicated:
GCBF could be sometimes less expensive (imagine quantity discounts)
Lambdas implemented on GCBF should be more reliable
GCBF could be used for lambdas inside country (using OADMs etc.)
In general, CBF procurement results achieved by NRENs and by
DANTE are (and will be) different
GN2 support for RCBF prepared
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
12
Cross border fibre issues
(lines are examples only)
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
13
CBF connection needed
For GN2 members to
Bucharest
Sofiya
Athena
For GN2 observers to
Beograde
Skopje
For GN2 non-members to
Tirana
Sarajevo
We should agree in SEEFIRE now about required steps, including
suggestion to GN2
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
14
Acknowledgement
Lada Altmannova for topology maps
CzechLight team members for collaboration
SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 2005
15