Transcript International Networks and the US-CERN Link

Networks for HENP and ICFA SCIC
Harvey B. Newman
California Institute of Technology
CHEP2003, San Diego
March 24, 2003
Global Networks for HENP
Circa 2003
National and International Networks, with sufficient
(and rapidly increasing) capacity and capability, are
essential for
Data analysis, and the daily conduct of collaborative
work in both experiment and theory,
Involving physicists from all world regions
Detector development & construction on a global scale
The formation of worldwide collaborations
The conception, design and implementation of
next generation facilities as “global networks”
“Collaborations on this scale would never have
been attempted, if they could not rely on excellent
networks” (L. Price)
Next Generation Networks for
Experiments: Goals and Needs
Large data samples explored and analyzed by thousands of
globally dispersed scientists, in hundreds of teams
 Providing rapid access to event samples and analyzed physics
results drawn from massive data stores
From Petabytes by 2002, ~100 Petabytes by 2007,
to ~1 Exabyte by ~2012.
 Providing analyzed results with rapid turnaround, by
coordinating and managing large but LIMITED computing,
data handling and NETWORK resources effectively
 Enabling rapid access to the Data and the Collaboration
Across an ensemble of networks of varying capability
 Advanced integrated applications, such as Data Grids,
rely on seamless operation of our LANs and WANs
With reliable, monitored, quantifiable high performance
ICFA and International Networking
ICFA Statement on Communications in Int’l HEP
Collaborations of October 17, 1996
See http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/icfa_communicaes.html
“ICFA urges that all countries and institutions wishing
to participate even more effectively and fully in
international HEP Collaborations should:
 Review their operating methods to ensure they
are fully adapted to remote participation
 Strive to provide the necessary communications
facilities and adequate international bandwidth”
NTF
ICFA Network Task Force: 1998
Bandwidth Req’ments Projection (Mbps)
1998
2000
2005
0.05 - 0.25
(0.5 - 2)
0.2 – 2
(2-10)
0.8 – 10
(10 – 100)
0.25 - 10
1.5 - 45
34 - 622
BW to a Home Laboratory Or
Regional Center
1.5 - 45
34 - 155
622 - 5000
BW to a Central Laboratory
Housing Major Experiments
34 - 155
BW on a Transoceanic Link
1.5 - 20
BW Utilized Per Physicist
(and Peak BW Used)
BW Utilized by a University
Group
155 - 622 2500 - 10000
34 - 155
622 - 5000
100–1000 X Bandwidth Increase Foreseen for 1998-2005
See the ICFA-NTF Requirements Report:
http://l3www.cern.ch/~newman/icfareq98.html
ICFA Standing Committee on
Interregional Connectivity (SCIC)
 Created by ICFA in July 1998 in Vancouver ; Following ICFA-NTF
 CHARGE:
Make recommendations to ICFA concerning the connectivity between
the Americas, Asia and Europe (and network requirements of HENP)
As part of the process of developing these
recommendations, the committee should
 Monitor traffic
 Keep track of technology developments
 Periodically review forecasts of future
bandwidth needs, and
 Provide early warning of potential problems
 Create subcommittees when necessary to meet the charge
 Representatives: Major labs, ECFA, ACFA, NA Users, S. America
 The chair of the committee should report to ICFA once per
year, at its joint meeting with laboratory directors (Feb. 2003)
Bandwidth Growth of
Global HENP Networks
 Rate of Progress >> Moore’s Law. (US-CERN Example)
 9.6 kbps Analog
 64-256 kbps Digital
 1.5 Mbps Shared
 2 -4 Mbps
 12-20 Mbps
 155-310 Mbps
 622 Mbps
 2.5 Gbps 
 10 Gbps 
(1985)
(1989 - 1994)
(1990-3; IBM)
(1996-1998)
(1999-2000)
(2001-2)
(2002-3)
(2003-4)
(2005)
[X 7 – 27]
[X 160]
[X 200-400]
[X 1.2k-2k]
[X 16k – 32k]
[X 65k]
[X 250k]
[X 1M]
A factor of ~1M over a period of 1985-2005
(a factor of ~5k during 1995-2005)
 HENP has become a leading applications driver,
and also a co-developer of global networks
LHC Data Grid Hierarchy
CERN/Outside Resource Ratio ~1:2
Tier0/( Tier1)/( Tier2)
~1:1:1
~PByte/sec
~100-1500
MBytes/sec
Online System
Experiment
CERN Center
PBs of Disk;
Tape Robot
Tier 0 +1
Tier 1
~2.5-10 Gbps
IN2P3 Center
INFN Center
RAL Center
FNAL Center
2.5-10 Gbps
Tier 3
~2.5-10 Gbps
Tier 2
Institute Institute
Physics data cache
Workstations
Institute
Tier2 Center
Tier2 Center
Tier2 Center
Tier2 CenterTier2 Center
Institute
0.1 to 10 Gbps
Tens of Petabytes by 2007-8.
An Exabyte ~5-7 Years later.
Tier 4
Emerging Vision: A Richly Structured, Global Dynamic System
2001 Transatlantic Net WG
Bandwidth Requirements [*]

CMS
ATLAS
BaBar
CDF
D0
BTeV
DESY
2001 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
100
200
300
600
800
2500
50
100
300
600
800
2500
300
600
1100
1600
2300
3000
100
300
400
2000
3000
6000
400
1600
2400
3200
6400
8000
20
40
100
200
300
500
100
180
210
240
270
300
CERN 155- 622 2500 5000 10000 20000
BW
310
[*] See http://gate.hep.anl.gov/lprice/TAN. The 2001
LHC requirements outlook now looks Very Conservative in 2003
History – One large Research Site
Much of the Traffic:
SLAC  IN2P3/RAL/INFN;
via ESnet+France;
Abilene+CERN
Current Traffic ~400 Mbps;
Projections: 0.5 to 24 Tbps by ~2012
LHC: Tier0-Tier1 Link Requirements
Estimate: for Hoffmann Report 2000-1
Tier1  Tier0 Data Flow for Analysis
Tier2  Tier0 Data Flow for Analysis
Interactive Collaborative Sessions [30 Peak]
Remote Interactive Sessions [30 Peak]
Individual (Tier3 or Tier4) data transfers
[Limit to 10 Flows of 5 Mbytes/sec each]
 TOTAL Per Tier0 - Tier1 Link
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
0.5 - 1.0 Gbps
0.2 - 0.5 Gbps
0.1 - 0.3 Gbps
0.1 - 0.2 Gbps
0.8 Gbps
1.7 - 2.8 Gbps
 Does Not Include More Recent (e.g. ATLAS) Data Estimates
 Rates 270-400 Hz, Event Size 2 MB/Event
 Does Not Allow Fast Download to Tier3+4
of Many “Small” Object Collections
 Example: Download 107 Events of AODs (104 Bytes)  100
Gbytes; at 5 Mbytes/sec per person that’s 6 Hours !
 This is a still a rough, bottoms-up, static, and
hence Conservative Model.
 A Dynamic Grid System may well require greater bandwidth
2003 NSF ITRs: Globally Enabled
Analysis Communities & Collaboratories
 Develop and build
Dynamic Workspaces
 Construct Autonomous
Communities Operating
Within Global Collaborations
 Build Private Grids to support
scientific analysis communities
 e.g. Using Agent Based
Peer-to-peer Web Services
 Drive the democratization of
science via the deployment of
new technologies
 Empower small groups of
scientists (Teachers and
Students) to profit from and
contribute to int’l big science
Private Grids and Peer-to-Peer
Sub-Communities in Global HEP
SCIC in 2002-3
A Period of Intense Activity
Formed WGs in March 2002; 9 Meetings in 12 Months
Strong Focus on the Digital Divide
Presentations at Meetings and Workshops
(e.g. LISHEP, APAN, AMPATH, ICTP and ICFA Seminars)
HENP more visible to governments: in the WSIS Process
Five Reports; Presented to ICFA Feb. 13,2003
See http://cern.ch/icfa-scic
Main Report: “Networking for HENP” [H. Newman et al.]
Monitoring WG Report
[L. Cottrell]
Advanced Technologies WG Report [R. Hughes-Jones,
O. Martin et al.]
Digital Divide Report
[A. Santoro et al.]
Digital Divide in Russia Report
[V. Ilyin]
SCIC in 2002-3
A Period of Intensive Activity
Web Page http://cern.ch/ICFA-SCIC/
 Monitoring: Les Cottrell (SLAC)
(http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/scic-netmon)
With Richard Hughes-Jones (Manchester), Sergio Novaes
(Sao Paolo); Sergei Berezhnev (RUHEP), Fukuko Yuasa (KEK),
Daniel Davids (CERN), Sylvain Ravot (Caltech),
Shawn McKee (Michigan)
 Advanced Technologies: R. Hughes-Jones, Olivier Martin (CERN)
With Vladimir Korenkov (JINR, Dubna), H. Newman
 The Digital Divide: Alberto Santoro (Rio, Brazil)
With V. Ilyin (MSU), Y. Karita(KEK), D.O. Williams (CERN)
Also V. White (FNAL), J. Ibarra and H. Alvarez (AMPATH),
D. Son (Korea), H. Hoorani, S. Zaidi (Pakistan),
S. Banerjee (India),
 Key Requirements: Harvey Newman and Charlie Young (SLAC)
HENP Networks: Status and Outlook:
SCIC General Conclusions
The scale and capability of networks, their pervasiveness
and range of applications in everyday life, and HENP’s
dependence on networks for its research, are all
increasing rapidly.
However, as the pace of network advances continues to
accelerate, the gap between the economically “favored”
regions and the rest of the world is in danger of widening.
We must therefore work to Close the Digital Divide
To make Physicists from All World Regions Full Partners
in Their Experiments; and in the Process of Discovery
 This is essential for the health of our global
experimental collaborations, our plans for future
projects, and our field.
ICFA SCIC: R&E Backbone and
International Link Progress
GEANT Pan-European Backbone (http://www.dante.net/geant)
 Now interconnects >31 countries; many trunks 2.5 and 10 Gbps
UK: SuperJANET Core at 10 Gbps
 2.5 Gbps NY-London, with 622 Mbps to ESnet and Abilene
France (IN2P3): 2.5 Gbps RENATER3 backbone from October 2002
 Lyon-CERN Link Upgraded to 1 Gbps Ethernet
 Plan for dark fiber to CERN by end 2003
SuperSINET (Japan): 10 Gbps IP and 10 Gbps Wavelength Core
 Tokyo to NY Links: 2 X 2.5 Gbps started
CA*net4 (Canada): Interconnect customer-owned dark fiber
nets across Canada at 10 Gbps, started July 2002
 “Lambda-Grids” by ~2004-5
GWIN (Germany): 2.5 Gbps Core; Connect to US at 2 X 2.5 Gbps;
Support for Virtual SILK Hwy Project: Satellite links to FSU Republics
Russia: 155 Mbps Links to Moscow (Typ. 30-45 Mbps for Science)
 Moscow-Starlight Link to 155 Mbps (US NSF + Russia Support)
 Moscow-GEANT and Moscow-Stockholm Links 155 Mbps
R&E Backbone and Int’l Link Progress
Abilene (Internet2) Upgrade from 2.5 to 10 Gbps in 2002-3
Encourage high throughput use for targeted applications;
FAST
ESNET: Upgrade: 2.5 and 10 Gbps Links
SLAC + IN2P3 (BaBar)
Typically ~400 Mbps throughput on US-CERN, Renater links
~600 Mbps Throughput is BaBar Target for First Half of 2003
FNAL: ESnet Link Upgraded to 622 Mbps
Plans for dark fiber to STARLIGHT, proceeding
US-CERN 622 Mbps in production from 8/02
2.5G to 10G Research Triangle STARLIGHT-CERN-SURFNet(NL);
[10Gbps SNV-Starlight Link Loan from Level(3) 10/02-2/03]
IEEAF Donation from Tyco: NY-Amsterdam Completed 9/02;
Transpacific Donation by Mid-2003. 622 Mbps+10G Wavelength
US Nat’l Light Rail and USAWaves (10 Gbps DWDM-based Fiber
Infrastructures) Proceeding this Year
SuperSINET Updated Map: October 2002
10 GbE + 10 Gbps IP Backbone
10 15 SuperSINET Universities with
Many SINET Nodes with 30-100 Mbps
GbE
2003: OC192 and OC48 Links Coming Into Service;
Upgrade Links to US HENP Labs
Network Challenges and
Requirements for High Throughput
 Low to Extremely Low Packet Loss (<< 0.01% for standard TCP)
 Need to track down uncongested packet loss
 No Local Infrastructure Bottlenecks or Quality Compromises
 Gigabit Ethernet and eventually some 10 GbE
“clear paths” between selected host pairs
 TCP/IP stack configuration and tuning Absolutely Required
 Large Windows (~BW*RTT); Possibly Multiple Streams
 Also need to consider Fair Sharing with Other Traffic
 Careful Configuration: Routers, Servers and Client Systems
 Sufficient End-system CPU and Disk I/O; NIC performance
 End-to-end monitoring and tracking of performance
 Close collaboration with local and “regional” network staffs
 New TCP Protocol Stacks Engineered for Stable
Fair Operation at 1-10 Gbps; Eventually to 100 Gbps
HEP is Learning How to Use Gbps Networks Fully:
Factor of 25-100 Gain in Max. Sustained TCP Thruput
in 15 Months, On Some US+TransAtlantic Routes
*
9/01
105 Mbps 30 Streams: SLAC-IN2P3; 102 Mbps 1 Stream CIT-CERN
 1/09/02 190 Mbps for One stream shared on Two 155 Mbps links
 3/11/02 120 Mbps Disk-to-Disk with One Stream on 155 Mbps
link (Chicago-CERN)
 5/20/02 450-600 Mbps SLAC-Manchester on OC12 with ~100 Streams
 6/1/02
290 Mbps Chicago-CERN One Stream on OC12 (mod. Kernel)
 9/02
850, 1350, 1900 Mbps Chicago-CERN 1,2,3 GbE Streams, 2.5G Link
 11-12/02:
930 Mbps in 1 Stream California-CERN, and California-AMS
FAST TCP 9.4 Gbps in 10 Flows California-Chicago
 2/03
2.38 Gbps in 1 Stream California-Geneva (99% Link Utilization)

FAST TCP:




Baltimore/Sunnyvale
RTT estimation: fine-grain timer
Fast convergence to equilibrium
Delay monitoring in equilibrium
Pacing: reducing burstiness
Measurements
 Std Packet Size
 Utilization averaged
over > 1hr
 3000 km Path
9G
90%
10G
88%
90%
Average
utilization
92%
95%
1 flow
2 flows
7 flows
Fair Sharing
Fast Recovery
8.6 Gbps;
21.6 TB
in 6 Hours
9 flows
10 flows
10GigE Data Transfer Trial
European Commission
On Feb. 27-28, a Terabyte of data was transferred in 3700
seconds by S. Ravot of Caltech between the Level3 PoP in
Sunnyvale near SLAC and CERN through the TeraGrid
router at StarLight from memory to memory
As a single TCP/IP stream at average rate of 2.38 Gbps.
(Using large windows and 9kB “Jumbo frames”)
This beat the former record by a factor of ~2.5, and
used the US-CERN link at 99% efficiency.
10GigE NIC
HENP Major Links: Bandwidth
Roadmap (Scenario) in Gbps
Year
Production
Experimental
Remarks
SONET/SDH
2001
2002
0.155
0.622
0.622-2.5
2.5
2003
2.5
10
DWDM; 1 + 10 GigE
Integration
2005
10
2-4 X 10
 Switch;
 Provisioning
2007
2-4 X 10
~10 X 10;
40 Gbps
~5 X 40 or
~20-50 X 10
~25 X 40 or
~100 X 10
1st Gen.  Grids
SONET/SDH
DWDM; GigE Integ.
40 Gbps 
~10 X 10
Switching
or 1-2 X 40
2nd Gen  Grids
2011
~5 X 40 or
Terabit Networks
~20 X 10
~Fill One Fiber
2013
~T erabit
~MultiTbps
Continuing the Trend: ~1000 Times Bandwidth Growth Per Decade;
We are Rapidly Learning to Use Multi-Gbps Networks Dynamically
2009
HENP Lambda Grids:
Fibers for Physics
 Problem: Extract “Small” Data Subsets of 1 to 100 Terabytes
from 1 to 1000 Petabyte Data Stores
 Survivability of the HENP Global Grid System, with
hundreds of such transactions per day (circa 2007)
requires that each transaction be completed in a
relatively short time.
 Example: Take 800 secs to complete the transaction. Then
Transaction Size (TB)
Net Throughput (Gbps)
1
10
10
100
100
1000 (Capacity of
Fiber Today)
 Summary: Providing Switching of 10 Gbps wavelengths
within ~3-5 years; and Terabit Switching within 5-8 years
would enable “Petascale Grids with Terabyte transactions”,
to fully realize the discovery potential of major HENP programs,
as well as other data-intensive fields.
National Light Rail
Footprint
SEA
POR
SAC
NYC
CHI
OGD
DEN
SVL
CLE
FRE
PIT
BOS
WDC
KAN
NAS
STR
LAX
RAL
PHO
SDG
WAL
OLG
ATL
DAL
JAC
15808 Terminal, Regen or OADM site
Fiber route
NLR
Buildout
Started
November 2002
Initially 4 10 Gb
Wavelengths
To 40 10Gb
Waves in
Future
Transition beginning now to optical, multi-wavelength R&E networks.
 Also Note: IEEAF/GEO plan for dark fiber in Europe

Optical Packet Routing Using  Conversion
D. Blumenthal, UC Santa Barbara
Optical
> Electronic Switching
Microprocessor Power
Per Fiber Capacity Increases
1
Fast
Wavelength
Converter
23
4
5 6
7 
8
Packet switched
to wavelength 5
Packets at
Wavelength 1 and 7
Packet switched
to wavelength 2
Fast
Tunable
Laser
Control
Signals
Circuit
Switched Mode
Burst Mode
Packet Mode
80 Gbps Optical Packet Routing with
Label Swapping Results (UCSB)
Packets Routed to
1542.0 nm
Incoming
Packets
Packets Routed to
1556.0 nm
Packets Routed to
1548.0 nm
1st Hop
2nd Hop
Rapid Network Advances and
the Digital Divide
 The current generation of 2.5-10 Gbps network backbones
arrived in the last 15 Months in the US, Europe and Japan
 Major transoceanic links also are reaching 2.5 - 10 Gbps
 Capability Increased ~4 Times, i.e. 2-3 Times Moore’s Law
 This is a direct result of the continued precipitous fall
of network prices for 2.5 or 10 Gbps in these regions
Higher prices remain in the poorer regions
 There are strong prospects for further advances that will
cause the Divide to become a Chasm, Unless We Act
For the Rich Regions:
 10GigE in campus+metro backbones; GigE/10GigE to desktops
 Advances in protocols (TCP) to use networks at 1-10 Gbps+
 DWDM: More 10G wavelengths and/or 40G speeds on a fiber
 Owned or leased wavelengths: in the last mile, the region,
and/or across the country
PingER
Monitoring Sites
(Also IEPM-BW)
 Measurements from
38 monitors in 12 countries
790 remote hosts in 70 Countries;
3500 monitor-remote site pairs
Measurements go back to Jan-95
Reports on link reliability, quality
Countries monitored
Contain 78% of
world population
99% of Internet
users
Need to Continue, Strengthen the
IEPM+ICTP Monitoring Efforts
Remote Sites
History – Loss Quality (Cottrell)
 Fewer sites have very poor
to dreadful performance
 More have good performance
(< 1% Loss)
 BUT <20% of the world’s
population has Good or
Acceptable performance
History - Throughput Quality
Improvements from US
Bandwidth of TCP < MSS/(RTT*Sqrt(Loss))
(1)
80% annual
improvement
Factor ~100/8 yr
Progress: but Digital Divide is Maintained
(1) Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm, Matthis,
Semke, Mahdavi, Ott, Computer Communication Review 27(3), July 1997
NREN Core Network Size (Mbps-km):
http://www.terena.nl/compendium/2002
100M
Logarithmic Scale
10M
In Transition
Gr
100k
Ir
Lagging
Ro
1k
Ukr
100
Hu
Advanced
1M
10k
Leading
It
Pl
Ch
Es
Fi
Nl
Cz
Work on the Digital Divide:
Several Perspectives
 Identify & Help Solve Technical Problems:
Nat’l, Regional, Last 10/1/0.1 km; Peering.
 SCIC Questionnaire to Experiment Managements Lab Directors
 Strong Support for Monitoring Projects, such as IEPM
 Inter-Regional Proposals (Example: Brazil)
 US NSF Proposal (10/2002); EU @LIS Proposal
 Work on Policies and/or Pricing: pk, in, br, cn, SE Europe, …
 Find Ways to work with vendors, NRENs, and/or Gov’ts
 Use Model Cases: Installation of new advanced fiber
infrastructures; Convince Neighboring Countries
 Slovakia; Czech Republic; Poland (to 5k km fiber)
 Exploit One-off Solutions: E.g. the Virtual SILK Highway Project
(DESY/FSU satellite links); Extend to a SE European site
 Work with Other Cognizant Organizations: Terena, Internet2,
AMPATH, IEEAF, UN, GGFm etc.; help with technical and/or
political solns
Digital Divide Sub-Committee:
Questionnaire Response Extract:
Institution
Computing / networking needs related to HEP
Other
UERJ, Brazil
HEPGRID PROJECT presented for financial support to work Wait for approved
on CMS; T3 then T1. Last Mile Problem: Need to reach RNP funds to build a
with good routing from UERJ
T3; In 2005/6 a T1
Cinvestav,
Mexico
Dedicated 2 Mbps link for HEP group Needed
(now 2 X 2 Mbps for Whole Community; Not Enough)
UNLP, Argentina
a) LAN upgrade to 100 Mbps;
b) LAN-to-WAN upgrade to 4 Mbps
JSI, Slovenia
Additional bandwidth needed for HEP;
now 2 Mbps for > 1000 people
QAU, Pakistan
In terms of bandwidth need to upgrade but no last mile
connection problem. High Prices (Telecom monopoly)
TIFR, India
Will have a Tier3 Grid node; Need network bandwidth
upgrades at reasonable price (Telecom monopoly)
IFT-UNESP
Brazil
Will maintain a farm for Monte Carlo studies and a Tier 3
Grid node; need more bandwidth
University of
CYPRUS
HEP group intends to build a type T2 or T3 Grid node, and
contribute to MC Production. Need to upgrade Network to
Gigabit/sec. In principle there is no access limit the
Network now. But daily traffic load is the real limitation.
Also plans for T2
at NUST
34 Mbps Link to
GEANT.University
pays for Network
International Connectivity Costs in the
Different European Market Segments
Market segment
Liberal Market with
transparent pricing
Liberal Market with less
transparent pricing structure
Emerging Market without
transparent pricing
Traditional Monopolist
market
Number of
Countries
8
Cost
Range
1-1.4
7
1.8-3. 3
3
7.5-7. 8
9
18-39
Dai Davies SERENATE Workshop Feb. 5, 2003
Telecom monopolies have even higher
prices in low income countries
 Fewer Market Entrants. Less Competition
 Lower Income  Less Penetration
of New Technologies
 Price cap regulation creates cross subsidies
between costumer groups.
Large customers (inelastic demand)
subsidize small costumers (elastic):
High bandwidth services are very
expensive
 Inefficient Rights of Way (ROW) regulation
 Inefficient spectrum allocation policies
C. Casasus, CUDI (Mexico); W. St. Arnaud, CANARIE (Canada)
Romania: 155 Mbps to GEANT and Bucharest;
Inter-City Links of 2-6 Mbps; to 34 Mbps in 2003
GEANT
155Mbps
34Mbps
34Mbps
34Mbps
34Mbps
Annual Cost
Was > 1 MEuro
34Mbps
Stranded Intercity
Fiber Assets
APAN Links in Asia January 2003
Typical Intra-Asia Int’l
Links 0.5 – 45 Mbps
Progress: Japan-Korea Link: 8 Mbps to 1 Gbps in Jan. 2003;
IEEAF 10G + 0.6G Links by ~June 2003
Inhomogeneous Bandwidth Distribution
in Latin America. CAESAR Report (6/02)
J. Ibarra,
AMPATH Wkshp
In Progress:
622 Mbps Miami–Rio;
CLARA Project:
Brazil, Mexico, Chile,
Agentina
Need to Pay
Attention
to End-point
connections
Int’l Links
4,236 Gbps Fiber Capacity
Into Latin America;
(e.g. UERJ Rio)
Only 0.071 Gbps Used
Digital Divide Committee
Gigabit Ethernet Backbone;
100 Mbps Link to GEANT
Virtual Silk Highway Project
Managed by DESY and Partners
STM 16
Virtual SILK Highway Project (from 11/01):
NATO ($ 2.5 M) and Partners ($ 1.1M)
 Satellite Links to 8 FSU Republics
in So. Caucasus and Central Asia
In 2001-2 (pre-SILK) BW 64-512 kbps
Proposed VSAT to get 10-50 X BW
for same cost
See www.silkproject.org
[*] Partners: DESY, GEANT, CISCO
UNDP, US State Dept., Worldbank,
UC London, Univ. Groenigen
 SCIC: Extend to a SE Europe Site ?
NATO Science for Peace Program
http://www.ieeaf.org
“Cultivate and promote
practical solutions to
delivering scalable,
universally available and
equitable access to
suitable bandwidth and
necessary network
resources in support of
research and education
collaborations.”
Groningen Carrier Hotel
TransAtlantic, Transpacific,
Intra-US and European Initiatives
US-JP-KR-CN-SG
Tokyo by ~6/03
NY-AMS Done 9/02
(Research)
Global Medical Research Exchange Initiative
Bio-Medicine and Health Sciences
St. Petersburg
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
NL
CA
MD
Barcelona
Greece
GHANA
Layer 1 – Spoke & Hub Sites
Buenos
Aires/San
Paolo
Chenai
Navi
Mumbai
CN
SG
PERTH
Layer 2 – Spoke & Hub Sites
Layer 3 – Spoke & Hub Sites
2002-3: Beginning a Plan for a Global Research
and Education Exchange for High Energy Physics
Global Quilt Initiative – GMRE Initiative - 001
Jensen, ICTP
Typ. 0-7 bps
Per Person
Progress
in Africa ?
Limited
by many
external
systemic
factors:
Electricity;
Import Duties;
Education;
Trade
restrictions
Jensen, ICTP
Networks, Grids and HENP
 Current generation of 2.5-10 Gbps backbones and int’l links
arrived in the last 15 Months in the US, Europe and Japan
 Capability Increased ~4 Times, i.e. 2-3 Times Moore’s
Reliable high End-to-end Performance of network applications
is required (large transfers; Grids), and is achievable
Achieving this more broadly for HENP requires:
 End-to-end monitoring; a coherent approach (IEPM Project)
 Getting high performance (TCP) toolkits in users’ hands
 Isolating and addressing specific problems
Removing Regional, Last Mile Bottlenecks and Compromises
in Network Quality are now
On the critical path, in all world regions
Digital Divide: Network improvements are especially needed in
SE Europe, So. America; SE Asia, and Africa
 Work in Concert with Internet2, Terena, APAN, AMPATH;
DataTAG, the Grid projects and the Global Grid Forum
SCIC Work in 2003
 Continue Digital Divide Focus
 Improve and Systematize Information in Europe;
in Cooperation with TERENA and SERENATE
 More in-depth information on Asia, with APAN
 More in-depth information on South America, with AMPATH
 Begin Work on Africa, with ICTP
 Set Up HENP Networks Web Site and Database
Share Information on Problems, Pricing; Example Solutions
 Continue and if Possible Strengthen Monitoring Work (IEPM)
 Continue Work on Specific Improvements:
 Brazil and So. America; Romania; Russia; India;
Pakistan, China
 An ICFA-Sponsored Statement at the World Summit on the
Information Society (12/03 in Geneva), prepared by SCIC +CERN
 Watch Requirements; the “Lambda” & “Grid Analysis” revolutions
 Discuss, Begin to Create a New “Culture of Collaboration”