Transcript The Campus as key to Internet2 Engineering

The Campus as key to
Internet2 Engineering
San Diego
Guy Almes <[email protected]>
4 December 2000
Outline of Talk
A
Internet2 Engineering Objectives
A
The Logic of End-to-End Performance
• Our Aspirations
• Threats to these Aspirations
• Promising Approaches to Success
A
The Internet2 End-to-End
Performance Initiative
Internet2 Engineering
Objectives
A
Provide our universities with superlative
networking:
• Performance
• Functionality
• Understanding
A
Make superlative networking strategic for
university research and education
The End to End Challenge
A
Support advanced networking end to end
A
Performance
• 100 Mb/s across the country normative
• several multiples possible in some cases
A
Functionality
• Multicast
• Quality of Service
• IPv6
• Measurements
What are our Aspirations?
A
A
Candidate Answer #1:
Switched 100BaseT + Well-provisioned
Internet2 networking ® 80 Mb/s
But user expectations and experiences
vary widely
What are our Aspirations?
A
A
Candidate Answer #2:
Lower user expectations and minimize
complaining phone calls
There is a certain appeal I suppose...
What are our Aspirations?
A
A
Candidate Answer #3:
Raise expectations, encourage aggressive
use, deliver on performance/functionality
to key constituencies.
Not the easy way, but necessary for
success
Why should we Care?
A
Advanced faculty needs:
• Effective access to remote facility: quickly move large
datasets. PPDG: 400 Mb/s to CERN by 2003.
• Interactive access: video or control or VoIP.
Very low loss/jitter.
A
We (in several senses) need to deliver the
goods.
Why should we Care?
A
"We" as the university community.
A
"We" as campus networking specialists.
A
"We" as networking professionals.
A
"We" as the (broad) Internet2 project.
A
Low aspirations are dangerous to us.
Abilene core
November 2000
Seattle
New York
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Sacramento
Washington
Denver
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Atlanta
Houston
Abilene Connections
by (roughly) YE 2000
International Peering
Seattle
CA*net3, (AARnet)
STAR TAP
APAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, IUCC,
NORDUnet, RENATER, REUNA,
SURFnet, SingAREN, SINET, TAnet2
CERnet, (HARnet)
OC12
Sunnyvale
New York
DANTE*,
JANET,
NORDUnet,
SURFnet
CA*net3
(SINET)
Los Angeles
SingAREN, SINET
San Diego
CUDI
El Paso
(CUDI)
OC3-12
Miami
(REUNA, RNP2,
RETINA)
The Current Situation
A
We have a combined Internet2
infrastructure of considerable capacity
• examples of 240 Mb/s flows
A
End to end performance varies widely
• but 40 Mb/s flows not always predictable
• users don't know what their expectations should be
A
Note the mismatch
The Current Situation
A
We have a combined Internet2
infrastructure of considerable capacity
• examples of 240 Mb/s flows
A
End to end performance varies widely
• but 40 Mb/s flows not always predictable
• users don't know what their expectations should be
A
Note the mismatch
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
A
BW = C x packet-size / ( delay x sqrt(packet-loss ))
(Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, CCR, July 1997)
Context:
•
Network capacity
•
Geographical distance
•
Aggressive application
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
Network Path
•
•
A
local / department / campus
gigaPoP / backbone / exchange
points
Host problems
•
OS / TCP
•
Hardware: NIC, CPU, memory, bus
•
Application
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
Fiber problems
• dirty fiber
• dim lighting
• 'not quite right' connectors
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
Fiber problems
A
Switches
• horsepower
• full vs half-duplex
• auto-sense 10/100
• head-of-line blocking
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
Fiber problems
A
Switches
A
Inadvertently stingy provisioning
• mostly communication
• happens also in international settings
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
Fiber problems
A
Switches
A
Inadvertently stingy provisioning
A
Wrong Routing
• asymmetric
• best use of Internet2
• distance
Threats to
End to End Performance
A
Fiber problems
A
Switches
A
Inadvertently stingy provisioning
A
Wrong Routing
A
Host issues
• NIC
• OS / TCP stack
• CPU
Perverse Result
A
A
'Users' think the network is congested or
that the Internet2 infrastructure cannot
help them
'Planners' think the network is
underutilized, no further investment
needed, and users don't need high
performance networks
Promising Approaches
A
Work with key motivated users
A
'Shining a flashlight' on the problem
A
Measurements
A
Divide-and-Conquer
A
Understanding Application Behavior
A
Getting it right the first time
Active Measurements
within Abilene
Surveyors with:
Active delay/loss measurements
Ad hoc throughput tests
Application to
Performance Debugging
Application to
Performance Debugging
Divide and Conquer
A
A
Systematically identify/isolate the
network segment at fault
Can we make this systematic and
(eventually) automated?
End to End
Advanced Functionality
A
Multicast
A
IPv6
A
QoS
Internet2 End-to-End
Performance Initiative
A
A
A
Distributed measurement infrastructure
Teams of performance analysis specialists
(PERTs)
Dissemination of best practices
Defining End-to-End
Success Metrics
A
Identify core applications / services
• high-performance TCP
• VoIP / videoconferencing
• pervasive native IP multicast
A
Scope
• How pervasive is it supported across the campus?
A
Timeliness
• When are these metrics achieved?
Anticipated Partners
A
NLANR
A
Web100
A
Abilene partners
A
Leading campuses and gigaPoPs
A
Internet2 corporate partners
Initiative Phases
A
1st Gear
• Preparation, planning, early experiments
A
2nd Gear: Early Adopters Phase
• Partner with 10-15 selected campus
• Develop PERTs, Measurement Infrastructure, etc.
• Build tools, resources, and best practices
• Expect RFP in late January 2001
A
3rd Gear: Dissemination
• Increasingly pervasive PERTs, infrastructure
Creating Internet2 Value
A
A
A
A
Build the infrastructure together
Make end-to-end performance and
advanced functionality routine
Identify and connect valuable resources
for our faculty and students
Have fun