Efficient Design Strategies for Cross-Border Fibre Networks

1. CEF network design(including cross-border fibre issues) Stanislav Šíma CESNET The SEEFIRE project is co-funded by the European Commission under the FP6 IST contract no. 15817

2. Network construction and parts(what is really our task) Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners: „If you construct something such as an idea, piece of writing or system, you create it by putting different parts together.“ • For network construction we need to elaborate specifications of: • Network services • Network building parts (elements) • Implementation of services by connecting elements • Elaboration of above specifications is called network design • Network design is semantically similar to computer design or electronic circuit design, but big difference makes complexity and cost of some building parts: • Building elements, implementation and operation of large scale networks are procured • Procurement is long process (especially if public funding is used): e.g. 7-24 month (but legal system in some countries is not so restrictive to research) • Returns and corrections of decisions could be very difficult or impossible in such procurement process (details depend on procurement regulations in given country) • Result of one-way design proces is not optimal (in general case)…. SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20052

3. Legacy procedure of REN design(ISP for R&E community) Decide about REN PoPs needed and then: • Procure SDH or lambda services • Procure „ISP-like“ equipment • Procure network operation and maintenance The first goal is service for researchers (research in networking is secondary) Main Advantages: • Relatively simple design and operation (we use large and matured building elements and services, with guarantee) • Transparency for donators and users (element selection is the best in the current commercial sense) Main Weakness and Risk: • The „best in current commercial sense“ is not the best generally (monopoly or dominant position of some vendors prevents it) • Construction simplicity and network reliability received are very expensive, i.e. network is based on outdated technology, adaptation to user needs is far from perfect, both CAPEX and OPEX are high • Vendors prevent some improvements of network after installation (to safe their exclusive delivery position) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20053

4. New possibilities in REN design • Main source of innovation is optical technology • Fibres and fibre lighting devices • Free Space Optics (up to 2.5 Gb/s per line) with microwave backup • Change of P2P services by P2P fibres is first step only • New types of transmitters, receivers, amplifiers, gratings etc. are available, some of them even with MultiSource Agreements • New network services are enabled, for example E2E lightpath on demand, fibre switching, facilities based networking … • New architecture for cost-effectivness: • Overcome distances by light only (see CESNET2 and GEANT2 core) • OEO conversion and switches should be rare (use OADM and OXC) • Few routers (2-4) per NREN are sufficient (see Surfnet6 and Canet4) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20054

5. CEF Network approachto REN design • Decide about REN PoPs needed and then: • Procure Dark fibres including optical first mile • Procure Open (multi-vendor) network equipment • Procure Network Integrator (if external support for design, deployment and operation is needed) The goal is still service for researchers, but role of research in design is stronger • CEF Network approach is field proved: • procurement of dark fibres instead services: proved by many NRENs, RONs, National LambdaRail, partially GEANT2 • procurement of open (multi-vendor) equipment: proved by SWITCH (including external design support), CzechLight (including CESNET-made Optical Amplifiers), partially CESNET2 • Many metropolitan CEF RENs has experience with network integration by own staff • Save own improvement freedom and independency on vendors • Save own ability to quick return and correct design (including re-tendering etc.) • Convince vendors in word and deed, that their task is changed • you need dedicated fibre instead of pacifier  • you will decide on devices suitable for network development, etc. SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20055

6. Main strategies for SEE NRENs development Short characteristics of main possibilities for SEE NRENs: • „Safe way“: Step-wise repeat NREN development seen in other countries (it is slow, quite expensive and preserves gap) • „Brute force way“: Use big investment to make „the second instance“ of some leading NREN (this approach is limited mainly by missing first mile fibres and by unsufficient funds) • „Innovation way“: Strong use of research results to solve NREN design problem. Search for cost-effective technology successively deployed in testbeds and tested in NRENs (or prepared for future NRENs) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20056

7. Possible Government Support for R&E • Remove telecommunication regulations for research and education • Simplify tendering regulations for research and education • Establish fibre lines for research and education as infrastructure donated by state (such as roads) • Support municipalities deploying first mile fibres for research and education It helps to national R&E and to national development. It helps to EU development too (by better connecting of SEE research capacity) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20057

8. GEANT2 design characteristics • GEANT2 is hybrid network: Lambda services (Layer2 OEO services) is offered to participants besides IP service (Layer3 services) • Small changes in network topology, local movings of GEANT PoPs requested by nRENs • Mixed procurement of services and dark fibres • Extensive comparisons of dark fibres to services costs, despite that reasons for dark fibres are strategic rather than financial, and result of comparison strongly depends on question: • How many lambdas will users need in next years??? • GEANT2 is CEF network in the sense, that core is on leased dark fibres and lighting equipment is owned by DANTE • Separated procurement of transmission system and switching equipment: one vendor selected for both (no CEF-like open result) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20058

9. Our example presented on TNC 2004 Rhodes SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 20059

10. Initial GEANT2 topology(dark fibre core footprint) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 200510

11. GEANT2 and SEE countries • GEANT2 will be one of world-leading continent-wide R&E network using dark fibres (another one will be National LambdaRail after merging with Abilene2 in USA) • Further work is strongly needed, for example: • GN2 procurement of dark fibres failed for connection of some countries, despite that dark fibres where available (good offer was missing), for example to Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania: re-tendering in GN2 is possible • Transmission and switching equipment are from single-vendor: multi-vendor interoperability problems must be solved on demarcation line GEANT2-NRENs • Important and feasible tasks: • acquire international dark fibres to GN2 countries Romania, Bulgaria and Greece • prepare international dark fibres to remaining SEEFIRE countries SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 200511

12. International dark fibre acquiring and using • Cross border fibre (CBF) issue • GCBF are GEANT2 cross border fibres, connecting GEANT2 PoPs • RCBF are Regional corss border fibres, connecting neighbours NRENs • In principle, by means NRENs fibres and RCBF is possible to implement European-wide lambdas and GCBF looks redundant • Situation is of course much more complicated: • GCBF could be sometimesless expensive (imagine quantity discounts) • Lambdas implemented on GCBF should be more reliable • GCBF could be used for lambdas inside country (using OADMs etc.) • In general, CBF procurement results achieved by NRENs and by DANTE are (and will be) different • GN2 support for RCBF prepared SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 200512

13. Cross border fibre issues(lines are examples only) SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 200513

14. CBF connection needed For GN2 members to • Bucharest • Sofiya • Athena For GN2 observers to • Beograde • Skopje For GN2 non-members to • Tirana • Sarajevo We should agree in SEEFIRE now about required steps, including suggestion to GN2 SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 200514

15. Acknowledgement • Lada Altmannova for topology maps • CzechLight team members for collaboration SEEFIRE technical meeting – Sofia, July 15, 200515