Internet 2 Intel Partnership Planning Meeting November 19, 2001
What Is Internet 2? 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
Internet 2 Universities 188 Universities as of November 2001 3
Internet 2 Mission Develop and deploy advanced network applications and technologies, accelerating the creation of tomorrow’s Internet. 4
Internet 2 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 Mich. Net UUNet SURANet Internet. MCI Intelligent Networks Giga. Bit Testbeds MBone Research and Development Source: Ivan Moura Campos NYSERNet ARPANet NSFNet NGI Internet 2 Partnerships 9
Internet 2 Activities and Focus Areas Advanced Network Infrastructure Middleware Engineering Advanced Applications End-to-End Performance Advanced Network Management Partnerships 10
Internet 2 Activities and Focus Areas Advanced Network Infrastructure 11
Internet 2 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 • IPv 6 • Qo. S • Measurement • Security – DDo. S detection efforts (Arbor Networks & Asta Networks) 14
Abilene status – November, 2001 IP-over-SONET (OC-48 c) backbone 54 direct connections • 3 OC-48 c (2. 5 Gbps) connections • 22 will connect via at least OC-12 c (622 Mbps) by year end 200+ primary participants • All 50 states, District of Columbia, & now Puerto Rico • 15 regional Giga. Po. Ps 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 Internet 2 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 DDo. S Traffic characterization (Ohio ITEC) • Network utilization by SEGPs and Abilene ITN • Abilene Scavenger Service policing • Giga. Po. P 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 – p 2 p 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-Po. P services (amps, regenerators, DWDMs? ) National footprint of 1 -2 fiber pairs – • IRU would cost $10 -20 M Most likely awaits the availability of lower-cost optical transmission equipment 22
Future of Abilene Original UCAID/Qwest Mo. U 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 • x 4 increase in the core backbone bandwidth – OC-48 c 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 IPv 6 • Running natively concurrently with IPv 4 • Replicate multicast deployment strategy • Motivations – Resolving IPv 4 address exhaustion issues – Preservation of the original End-to-End Architecture – International collaboration – Router and host capabilities • Close collaboration with Internet 2 IPv 6 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: Po. P 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, Giga. Po. Ps, 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 Giga. Po. Ps • EDUCAUSE and SURA • Quilt Giga. Po. Ps 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. internet 2. edu/abilene E-mail: abilene@internet 2. edu 30
Internet 2 Activities and Focus Areas Engineering Emphases 31
Engineering: Advanced Functionality Multicast IPv 6 Qo. S 32
Internet 2 Multicast Kevin Almeroth, Univ California Santa Barbara, chair Increasingly pervasive high-quality deployment of native IP multicast throughout the Internet 2 infrastructure Keeping an eye on SSM Implications of SSM on scalability, manageability Adapting applications to make use of SSM Clarifying the application story Internet 2's multicast infrastructure is a valuable sand box in which to test the value of new multicast applications 33
34
Internet 2 IPv 6 Dale Finkelson, Univ Nebraska, Michael Lambert, PSC, co-chairs Build the Internet 2 IPv 6 infrastructure Currently, based on v 4 -over-v 6 tunnels Planned as first-class service with the coming 10 Gb/s upgrade of Abilene Educate campus network engineers to support IPv 6 Explore the Motivation for IPv 6 within the Internet 2 community Make IPv 6 'real' within the university community (and to our students) 35
36
Internet 2 Qo. S Ben Teitelbaum, Internet 2 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
Internet 2 Measurements Matt Zekauskas, Internet 2 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
Internet 2 Activities and Focus Areas End-to-End Performance 43
Why the End-to-End Performance Initiative? Even with high bandwidth network links, the Internet 2 community often does not see expected performance. 44
The Wizard Gap 45
The E 2 Epi 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/Giga. Po. P • Giga. Po. P link to Internet 2 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 The computer Is working OK No other complaints Gigapop How do you solve a problem along a path? Looks fine Gigapop Backbone System Administrator 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 E 2 EPerformance 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 • Web 100 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 Internet 2 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 Ops Info LAN Administrator System Administrator Ops Info LAN Administrator Ops Info Campus Networking Ops Info System Administrator Ops Info Gigapop Information from All Parts of the Network Applications Developer Gigapop Ops Info Backbone 54
Standard Operational Info End-to-End Analyzer Applications Developer Ops Info LAN Administrator System Administrator Ops Info LAN Administrator Ops Info Campus Networking Ops Info System Administrator Ops Info Gigapop Know the Health of the Network Applications Developer Gigapop Ops Info Backbone 55
Standard Operational Info Apps Tuning End-to-End Analyzer Applications Developer Ops Info LAN Administrator System Administrator Ops Info LAN Administrator Ops Info Campus Networking Ops Info System Administrator Ops Info Gigapop Applications Adapt to the Network Applications Developer 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 • Giga. Po. P • 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! Applications Developer LAN Administrator System Administrator 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 Performance OK here Not a bottleneck At this point Gigapop A System to Check a Specific Problem System Administrator 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 Time! Applications Developer LAN Administrator System Administrator Campus Networking Gigapop Locate the Problem Gray Finger Pointing Tool Terry Gray University of Washington System Administrator Gigapop Backbone 62
Gray Finger Pointing Tool Time OK, I’ll fix it Applications Developer LAN Administrator System Administrator LAN Administrator You ARE the Weakest Link! Campus Networking Gigapop Applications Developer 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 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 Giga. Po. Ps International partners Research projects in performance Internet 2 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 • Internet 2 E 2 Epi Measurement Workshop Tempe, AZ, 27 -28 January 2002 • Campus Participation in E 2 Epi 67
Internet 2 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 E 2 Epi • Info-E 2 Epi@internet 2. edu • http: //www. internet 2. edu/e 2 epi 69
Internet 2 Activities and Focus Areas Advanced Network Management 70
Advanced Network Management Layer 2 Query. Protocol 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 Internet 2 Information On the Web • www. internet 2. edu Email • info@internet 2. edu 79
Internet 2 Contact Information Guy Almes: almes@internet 2. edu Jill Arnold: jillar@internet 2. edu Steve Corbato: corbato@internet 2. edu Ted Hanss: ted@internet 2. edu Russ Hobby: rdhobby@internet 2. edu Doug Van Houweling: dvh@internet 2. edu Steve Wallace: ssw@indiana. edu 80
www. internet 2. edu 81
Скачать презентацию Internet 2 Intel Partnership Planning Meeting November 19
acff709d9ceae19f38f8612735e84faf.ppt