Internet 2 International Activities Heather Boyles Director, International Relations, Internet 2 Industry Strategy Council Meeting
NSF International Connections §High Performance International Internet Services (HPIIS) • Original solicitation (RFP) 1997 • Funded three connections projects – Trans. PAC – Asia (Indiana University) – Euro. Link – Europe (France, Israel, Nordic countries, Netherlands) (University of Illinois Chicago) – MIRnet – Russia (University of Tennessee, later NCSA) • To connect to STAR TAP (Chicago) – Also funded by NSF
New NSF International connections program §NSF International Research Network Connections (IRNC) solicitation released March 9, 2004 §NSF Shared Cyber Infrastructure (SCI) division • Within CISE (Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering) §Proposals due June 7, 2004 • To support network connections linking US research networks with peer networks in other parts of the world • In support of science and engineering research and education applications
Program emphases §Economies of scale; linking largest communities of interest with broadest services §Reliable, leading-edge service for research and education • Contemplates possibility that infrastructure could also provide for experiments that prototype next generation services, but doesn’t require §Rational global network architecture; sharing of circuits, encouragement of national/regional build-out
The right approach §Given limited resources and solicitation’s focus on broadest possible reach……. §A coordinated response from the community • Avoid individual, competing efforts that fragment available resources • Greater leverage of outside resources – Key partners outside US are interested in working with US as a single entity, not competing institutions • Move away from point to point connections and toward global infrastructure • Provide seamless performance for science community
Internet 2 Role §Catalyst for coordinated response §Bring to table Internet 2 member institutions with resources, capabilities §Corporate relationships §US domestic infrastructure §International relationships §Internet 2 coordinated community efforts in performance, security, middleware, discipline community engagement
Strategy §Form coalition of partners from Internet 2 community • Indiana University and Internet 2 are on board • Key additional partners we are working on: – Pacific Northwest Gigapop (UW) – CENIC – U. Hawaii – Star. Light (Tom De. Fanti) – GLORIAD project – Florida International University – IEEAF – Others (NYSERNET, discipline communities: Harvey Newman, MIT Haystack, Gemini Observatory) §Single proposal covering connectivity to Europe, Asia/Oceania, Latin America and beyond
Key non-US partners §Europe: GEANT consortium §Asia: APAN with APAN-Japan (MPHPT – Communications Research Laboratory) • Australia/AARNET connections • CERNET/CSTNET in China/Hong Kong • Singapore? §Latin America: CLARA consortium
Latin America §Latin America: CLARA backbone network • Initially Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Chile with Venezuela, possibly Panama • Ecuador, Cost Rica, Uruguay, Colombia 2 nd wave §Focus on: • Dark fiber across border between San Diego and Tijuana (to CUDI/CLARA pop) – CENIC to play major role in facilitating • Connection from US (Miami, New York) to CLARA node on South American continent (Sao Paulo, Santiago) – FIU could play key role with exchange point facility in Miami; and continuing Global Crossing donations to AMPATH
Asia-Pacific Connections §No regional “backbone network” • Connection to APAN Tokyo XP and beyond (Hong Kong, Singapore) • Leverage Australian connections to US West Coast via Hawaii §Key US partner roles • Indiana University – relationship with Japanese funding source • Pacific Wave (Pacific North. West Gigapop and CENIC) infrastructure – Land connections from Australia and to Tokyo and beyond • U. Hawaii facilitating connections in Hawaii – Japan link? – Astronomy importance
Europe and beyond §GEANT • European Commission and National Research Network funded (31+ countries) §Key to ‘global approach’ • GEANT connectivity to Mediterranean, South Eastern Europe, Russia, Southeastern Asia, Latin America • Willing to partner together to leverage each others’ facilities, resources • Share trans-oceanic (both Atlantic and Pacific) capacities • Key to reaching South Africa? India possibly
Status/Progress §In process of getting key US/Internet 2 member partners on board • Indiana University on board • NYSERNET on board • Discussions this weekend and next week to see if we can get other key members on board §Key non-US partners are on board §Discussions with carriers to understand circuit costing issues; build a set of alternatives based on funds available §Beginning proposal-writing process
Risks, Challenges §Single proposal to NSF presents issues • Size of award • Expectation of 3 -6 proposals §Possible that we will not be able to get all key US partners on board §Competing proposals are likely – although probably not on this scale
Conclusion §The NSF program is a key opportunity §At the same time, the coordination effort needs to extend beyond this particular opportunity • If we can create a framework of global interconnectivity, can leverage other resources – Outside US – Within US: other government agencies: DOE/ESnet §Internet 2 is well-positioned to play critical role in coordinating these efforts on behalf of US, in partnership with NSF and others §Will rely on gaining partnership of key US community members
Скачать презентацию Internet 2 International Activities Heather Boyles Director International
3cc392a2b51b2f3380c337051f523196.ppt