3cc392a2b51b2f3380c337051f523196.ppt
- Количество слайдов: 14
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
3cc392a2b51b2f3380c337051f523196.ppt