Transcript PPT - Ben Teitelbaum

Partnering with Internet2 to
Develop Next-Generation
Campus Services
Ben Teitelbaum <[email protected]>
Dennis Baron <[email protected]>
Tyler Johnson <[email protected],>
Walt Magnussen <[email protected]>
Jeremy George <[email protected]>
Spring 2005 VON
San Jose, CA
8 March 2004
Internet2 Who?
Elevator Explanation
• Internet2's mission is to develop and deploy advanced network
applications and technologies, accelerating the creation of
tomorrow’s Internet
Who we really are
• Membership organization of 200+ US research universities
• Parent 501.3c (UCAID) has board of university presidents
• Project supported by numerous partnerships (government,
industry, international)
Goals
• Enable new generation of applications
• Re-create leading edge R&E network capability
• Transfer capability to global production internet
2
Internet2 Corporate Members
Speaking or Presenting at VON
3
Internet2 Universities
206 University Members, March 2005
4
High Performance Networks
5
Internet2 Partnerships
Internet2 universities are recreating the
partnerships that fostered the Internet in its
infancy
• Industry
• Government
• International
Additional Participation
•
•
•
•
Over 60 Internet2 Corporate Members
Over 40 Affiliate Members
New Association Member Category
Over 30 International Partners
6
Sponsored Education Group
Participants
7
Internet2 Focus Areas
Advanced Network Infrastructure
• 10 GB Abilene backbone • Advanced regional networks • 100 MB to
the desktop • National fiber-optic facility
Middleware
• Directories • Authentication • Authorization
Engineering
• Multicast • IPv6 • Measurement • New Arch
Advanced Applications
• Gigabit+ file transfer • High-end video • Remote instrumentation •
Distributed computation • Virtual co-laboratories • Distance learning •
Integrated Communications
8
Internet2’s Secret Sauce
 Demographics
• ~3.8 million students (tech-savvy, talk a lot, adapt easily)
• And, by the way, they graduate (tech-transfer à la email)
 Institutional Commitments
• Internet2 members have committed to advance IP communications
and promote collaborative apps
• Commitment to advance communication way beyond POTS
 Connectivity
• Great networking connectivity and campus middleware
– High-bandwidth, low-loss, low-jitter
– End-to-end transparency (few NATs)
– Emerging middleware infrastructure for authentication & authorization
– IPv6 and multicast too!
 Strong commitment to open standards
9
Applications:
Advanced Networking in Action
10
Post-POTS Communications
 Many ways to improve collaboration and
communications…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Multi-media integration
Integration with campus IT
Use of IPv6 and Multicast
Fidelity
Privacy
Survivability
Addressing
Mobility
Emergency services
* Drawings by VoIP user, Louis Teitelbaum (age 6)
11
Scaling Advanced Real-Time
Communications
High-performance, end-to-end IP connectivity
is necessary, but not sufficient
to connect Alice with Bob
?!
Alice
Network-Layer
Connectivity
!?
Bob
high-performance, end-to-end IP transit
User
Host
Campus /
Enterprise
WANs/MANs/LANs
Campus /
Enterprise
Host
User
12
Today: 3rd Party ASPs Provide
the Missing Middleware
BU
Bob Jones
email: [email protected]
Skype: bob2_bigu.edu
FWD: 654321
Yahoo!: bobj26
3rd Party ASPs
Skype FWD Yahoo! …
?
?
Alice
Bob
Applications
However, communications is Balkanized by
competing 3rd parties, who are unable to
provide strong authentication, identity
management, or rich presence for their users
Network-Layer
Connectivity
high-performance, end-to-end IP transit
User
Host
Campus /
Enterprise
WANs/MANs/LANs
Campus /
Enterprise
Host
User
13
The Missing Piece:
Campus / Enterprise Middleware
BU
Bob Jones
[email protected]
Identity management, authentication, call
routing, and rich presence are best
implemented and scaled by campus /
enterprise middleware
Alice
Applications
Bob
Campus
Middleware
Identity
Management,
Call Routing,
Authentication,
Presence
Identity
Management,
Call Routing,
Authentication,
Presence
Network-Layer
Connectivity
high-performance, end-to-end IP transit
User
Host
Campus /
Enterprise
WANs/MANs/LANs
Campus /
Enterprise
Host
User
14
Market Maker Role
ASPs
ITSPs
Auxiliary
Services
Bridging,
Bridging,
Gatewaying, ...or... Gatewaying, ...or...
Messaging,
Messaging,
…
…
Bridging,
Gatewaying,
Messaging,
…
Alice
Bob
Open campus / enterprise SIP
communications creates a communications
commons, creating vast new markets
Applications
Hard / Soft
Client Vendors
Campus
Middleware
Identity
Management,
Call Routing,
Authentication,
Presence
Network-Layer
Connectivity
Proxies, Directories, Identity
Feature Servers… Management,
Call Routing,
Authentication,
Presence
high-performance, end-to-end IP transit
User
Host
Campus /
Enterprise
WANs/MANs/LANs
Campus /
Enterprise
Host
User
15
Need for New Campus
Communications Services
 Voice was once revenue-generating for
many schools; no longer
 Users have adopted consumer services
to meet personal / profession needs
• Cellular
• Consumer IM&P (e.g. AIM, YIM, MSN)
• Consumer VoIP (e.g. Skype, FWD)
 How can universities develop services to:
•
•
•
•
Recapture these customers?
Enhance the campus life experience?
Facilitate collaborative research?
Improve productivity?
16
Our Beleaguered CIOs
Difficult times to innovate
• Tight budgets
• Staff stretched by network security demands
• Carrism (“IT is not strategic”)
• Fear, uncertainty, and doubt over industry
directions, regulatory environment, etc.
CIO’s need your help
• Thinking beyond POTS migration
• Understanding the value of new services
• Building operationally supportable service models
17
How Do We Do What We Do?
Working groups
• Build testbeds
• Develop prototypes, standards, and best practices
• Disseminate / educate (workshops)
Infrastructure
• National
• Regional
• Campus
Services
• Abilene
• Commons
• InCommon
18
Next Up...
 Dennis Baron (MIT)
• SIP.edu
 Tyler Johnson (UNC-Chapel Hill)
• Middleware for Videoconferencing
 Walt Magnussen (Texas A&M)
• Texas A&M ITEC
• NG911 Project
 Jeremy George (Yale)
• Presence and Integrated Communications
19
SIP.edu Working Group
 Goals
•
•
•
•
Grow SIP connectivity in Internet2
Increase value proposition for end-user SIP adoption
Promote convergence of voice and email identity
Low entry-cost means for campuses to...
– Provide a useful service
– Get their feet wet with SIP
 Means
• Publishing “cookbook” with several alternative “recipes”
• Obtaining corporate sponsorship and promotional pricing
– Cisco
– Avaya
20
Why Phone NUMBERS?
 Users should not be burdened with device addresses, when it’s
people they really care about
 Addresses should be mnemonic and empower enterprises to
manage the identities of their users
sip:[email protected]
 It’s time to put E.164 phone
numbers behind us!
 A.G. Bell did not say:
“+1-617-252-1232, come
here. I need you!”
21
SIP.edu Architecture
Proxy Partnerships
Gateway Partnerships
SIP User Agent
DNS SRV query
sip.udp.bigu.edu
INVITE
(sip:[email protected])
bigu.edu
DNS
SIP
Proxy
INVITE
(sip:[email protected])
SIP-PBX
Gateway
PRI / CAS
PBX
telephoneNumber
where mail=”bob”
Campus
Directory
Bob's Phone
22
SIP.edu Architecture (real soon)
SIP User Agent
IP Voice, Video, IM, ...
DNS SRV query
sip.udp.bigu.edu
INVITE
(sip:[email protected])
If Bob has registered, ring his SIP UAs;
Else, call his extension through the PBX.
bigu.edu
DNS
location
DB
SIP
Proxy
INVITE
(sip:[email protected])
SIP
Registrar
REGISTER
(Contact: 207.75.164.131)
Bob's SIP Phones
23
Campus Deployments
24
Future Directions
Support models for student/faculty UA
registrations
• Let them come with any SIP appliance or soft-phone
• Support for advanced media-video, IM, wideband audio, etc.
Interdomain SIP authentication
Voice SPAM prevention
Interoperability with other SIP services
PSTN Caller-ID integration
25
Partnership: GDS
A Global Dialing
Vendor partnerships
Scheme that uses
promoted the
H.323 to interconnect development of
hundreds of
scalable H.323
universities and
routing from
• RADVISION
research networks for
• Cisco
VoIP and video
• GNU (open source)
conferencing
•
•
•
•
VCON
Polycom
First Virtual
Tandberg
26
Partnership: ViDeNet
Interconnecting hundreds of universities and
research networks using GDS formed an
international community for video
conferencing
•
•
•
•
Sharing knowledge
Providing leadership and direction to the community at large
Enabling inter-institutional conferencing
Unearthing issues that are key to scalable technology, such
as global routing issues, directory services and federated
security.
This project grew the market for IP video
conferencing
27
Partnership: H.350
 Provides an enterprise or  Developed in partnership
carrier with a
with
• RADVISION
standardized way to store
• Tandberg
and access conferencing
• Polycom
information including
• VCON
VoIP, video and IM.
• Internet2 Video Middleware
 Directory Services for:
Group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Multimedia conferencing
H.323
H.235
SIP
Non-standard protocols
Call preferences (forwarding)
XMPP (jabber) in draft
• National Science Foundation
 Internet2 partners were
first to market because of
early test beds and
access to working code
and conceptual
understanding
28
TAMU ITEC
 ITEC.tamu.edu
 Established July of 2004
 One of four Internet2
Technology Evaluation
Centers
 Focus on VoIP and
Information Assurance
 Housed at Research
Park, TAMU
Supporting Vendors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agilent
Alcatel
Anritsu
Broadsoft
Cisco
IPTel
IXIA
Nortel
Pingtel
Siemens
Shoreline
29
NG911 Project
NTIA-funded project to build out IP-enabled
PSAPs using the SOS call architecture
• Location information pushed to User Agent (SIP phone)
which in turn reports location to PSAP
• Cisco to support DHCP extensions in phones
• Will compare existing Phase II location services to Proposed
I911 architecture.
• Adding graphical information to 911 call
• Showing ability to reroute call to alternate PSAP
• Will provide training to State Emergency Communications
Coordinators
Demo planned 1st week of May in DC
30
NG911 Project Partners
 Academic
•
•
•
•
Texas A&M University
Columbia University
The University of Virginia
Internet2
 Corporate
• Cisco
• Nortel
 Association
• National Emergency Number
Association (NENA)
 Government
• The State of Texas
Commission on State
Emergency Communications
(CSEC)
• The State of Virginia Division
of Public Safety
Communications of the
Virginia Information
Technologies Agency (VITA)
• Brazos County Texas E911
District
• City of College Station, Texas
31
Prototype
* gray features in progress.
32
Emergency call conferencing
PSAP brings all related
parties into a conference call
Hospital
Fire
department
INVITE
INVITE
Conference
server
Recorder
REFER
3rd party
call control
media
INVITE info
INVITE
INVITE
REFER
REFER
INVITE
media
info
Caller
PSAP
33
ADEC VoIP Beta Testing
American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC)
Tachyon Networks, Inc.
Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center
Department of Telecommunications
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Goals and Objectives
Goals and Objectives
• Conduct instrumented tests of Tachyon’s VoIP capability.
• Determine optimal configuration parameters and assess
performance over satellite links for VoIP equipment from a
variety of vendors.
• Monitor field tests at multiple ADEC sites in a normal
operational environment.
34
Contact: Walt Magnussen
Email: [email protected]
http://itec.tamu.edu
ADEC VoIP Beta Testing
American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC)
Tachyon Networks, Inc.
Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center
Department of Telecommunications
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Concept and Design
•Call is placed from SAT phone to LAN
phone
•Contending data is also transmitted over
satellite link
•Voice and contending data travels from
Tachyon facilities in San Diego to the
Internet2 network via the San Diego
Supercomputing Center
•Voice and data gets routed to Texas A&M
University Network
•Voice and data reaches the ITEC LAN
switch
•Data Quality Analyzer measures packets
lost over the entire network
•Voice Quality Tester takes transmitted
voice and received voice then returns back
a score (MOS) ranking the call quality
35
Contact: Walt Magnussen
Email: [email protected]
http://itec.tamu.edu
ADEC VoIP Beta Testing
American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC)
Tachyon Networks, Inc.
Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center
Department of Telecommunications
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Lab Implementation
Lab Testing Setup
Graduate student Karthik Kannan places a
call from the satellite phone to the local
network phone.
Packetized voice conversation travels to
Tachyon indoor units.
Tachyon Satellite Indoor Units
Tachyon Satellite Antenna
Packetized voice conversation
is converted to an RF signal to
be transmitted over the satellite
antenna.
36
Contact: Walt Magnussen
Email: [email protected]
http://itec.tamu.edu
VoIP Phone Codec Testing
Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center
Department of Telecommunications
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Goals and Objectives
•Evaluate various VoIP codecs
•Compare various vendor implementations of the codecs
•Research Codec Testing Algorithms
37
Contact: Walt Magnussen
Email: [email protected]
http://itec.tamu.edu
VoIP Phone Codec Testing
Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center
Department of Telecommunications
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Design and Implementation
Network Diagram
Network Lab Setup
IXIA Traffic Generator
1000 Mbps (Copper)
Cisco 2950 Switch
100 Mbps
100 Mbps
Cisco 3640 Router
Cisco 2950 Switch
1000 Mbps (Copper)
Anritsu - Network
Analyzer
10 Mbps
10 Mbps
10 Mbps
IP Phone
IP Phone
Handset Cord
Handset Cord
Adapter
Above: Graduate students Clark Xu Yang and Karthik Kannan
analyze results from voice quality test.
10 Mbps
E&M
Agilent VQT
E&M
Adapter
•Ixia traffic generator loads one side of the network with generic TCP traffic.
•Call is placed from one IP phone to the other.
•Anritsu Data Quality Analyzer measures packet loss between the two phones.
•Agilent VQT transmits audio file though one IP phone and receives the audio file with
potential missing packets though the other IP phone.
•VQT then compares the two audio files and returns a call quality score (MOS).
38
Contact: Walt Magnussen
Email: [email protected]
http://itec.tamu.edu
VoIP Phone Codec Testing
Internet2 Technology Evaluation Center
Department of Telecommunications
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Results and Conclusions
G.723/G.729 Codecs
G.711 Codecs
4.00
4.50
3.75
4.25
4.00
3.50
3.75
3.25
3.50
3.00
3.00
Cisco G.711
Pingtel G.711
Siemens G.711
Pingtel GIPS G.711
2.75
2.50
MOS (PESQ LQ)
MOS (PESQ LQ)
3.25
2.75
2.25
2.25
2.00
2.00
1.75
1.75
Cisco G.729
Pingtel G.729
Siemens G.723
2.50
1.50
1.50
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
0%
65%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
Packet Loss
Packet Loss
•G.711 codec provided acceptable audio quality
(MOS >3.0) up to 5% packet loss.
•GIPS codec significantly outperformed G.711
before declining in audio quality at 15%packet loss.
•G.729 codec degraded at a faster rate when packet
loss exceeded 5%
•Higher bandwidth applications such as LANs or
MANs should use G.711 as default
39
Contact: Walt Magnussen
Email: [email protected]
http://itec.tamu.edu
Paths-in-the-Snow Engineering
“We have a rare chance to get VoIP
right… so don’t blow it.”
- Jeff Pulver, Fall 2004 keynote
40
Rich Presence
Communication
That is:
Faster
Cheaper
Better
Quieter!
41
You Must Be Able to Get There
From Here!
Balkanization and walled garden
deployments may be the biggest threat
to fulfilling the promise of IP
communications
42
Disruptive Innovation
Rich Presence
Integrated Communication
Automated Location Based Services
Win/Win opportunities for vendors and
users
Ford, HP, Microsoft, Wave3Software,
Xten
43
44