Research Networks vs Networks for Research Needs for International Testbeds

1. Research Networks vs Networks for ResearchNeeds for International Testbeds Peter Kirstein University College London ACMKeynote

2. Contents of Talk • Early national testbeds - and reactions to them • Potted history until the 90s • Current status - nationally & internationally • Strengthening the present initiatives • A proposed global project theme ACMKeynote

3. The Central Theme • Large-scale network Test-beds are essential to explore vital aspects of Internet technology and applications • Their main aim must be research networks • Their use to support other research areas, should be mainly to exercise and validate the research results • Most such current funding is national, now further progress needs global test-beds ACMKeynote

4. Success of Testbeds • Today 30th anniversary first UCLA Arpanet node • Probably most influential testbed ever • Growth 4 to 100M nodes in thirty years • 80% pa growth rate exceeds the 16% telephone growth over a century, but beaten by mobile tel • Clearly this has politicians’ attention ACMKeynote

5. Political Requests • Vice-President Gore has claimed fatherhood of Internet • US NGI and other testbeds major US programme • Dutch (Surfnet) and Canadians (Canarie) have relatively large political programs • Which have mainly national testbeds • Include international connections ACMKeynote

6. ACMKeynote

7. International Testbed Acceptance • Does the Internet-2 Qbone Diagram mean that our battles are over • No we will analyse this further • International testbeds are still the exception • While many are partially convinced, much more is needed. ACMKeynote

8. Doubts on International Testbeds • In 1971, ICT was asked to give moral support to our proposal for an Arpanet link • We were told one would gain as much from a two week trip to Arpanet sites in the US • EU provided JAMES Net for research in ‘96/7 • Most access was for occasional one-hour bursts • In 1997/98 a link between Canada and the European Research nets was provided • It was normally available only for one-off demos ACMKeynote

9. Early European Views on Network Testbeds • National networks were first to develop technology, later to use it. • SERCNET, CYCLADES good examples • International networks were purely for technology development • EIN, most SATNET sites had no real traffic • Euronet was exception, but PTTs killed it • Ebit, James had same fate in the 90s! ACMKeynote

10. Testbeds as Policy Instruments • In 1978 I was requested to drop work on TCP/IP for UK Coloured Book • UCL ‘80s work was tolerated partly to keep TCP/IP and EARN out of the UK • 1997 JAMES had to be ATM, first TEN-155 plans were similar ACMKeynote

11. Possible Motivations for Testbeds • Specific technology developments • Must be beyond specific component testing or activity that can be completely simulated • Proof-of-concept of whole systems • e.g. scaleability, manageability, security, ease of interfacing applications, relative advantage, interoperability, unambiguous specification • Pilot total systems pre-commercially • May include also customer interest, economics ease of integration with other technologies, migration strategies, encourage applications ACMKeynote

12. History of Testbeds - the ‘70s • Most were mainly technology testbeds • e.g PRNET, SATNET in the US; Cyclades, EIN in Europe • The technology was extended to networks to support research (NSRs) • e.g. Sercnet, UUNET, Euronet in Europe, UUNET • There were some proof of concept ones • In the US Arpanet, in the UK EPSS (BT) were real proof of concept systems • A few carrier data networks started • e.g. Transpac, Datapac, EDS, Telenet ACMKeynote

13. History of Testbeds - the ‘80s • In the 80s, the Carriers concentrated on data-nets providing good and global coverage • Most did not use Internet standards • They seldom developed testbeds • Technology testbeds including new transmission and application-level techniques • VSAT and small size earth-stations in networks • ISDN pilots and early systems access to networks • Electronic mail, directories, graphics over networks • LAN-WAN gateways • First Secure net technologies ACMKeynote

14. Networks to Support Research - ‘80s • During the ‘80s, most countries built networks to support research • CSNET, MILNET, JANET, DFN, etc. • Need for stability discouraged experimentation • Emphasis on connecting users via LANs • First international nets - EARN, Internet, DECnet • Networks & services needed management • DNS, Routing tables, Directories, SNMP • Normally did not need separate networks ACMKeynote

15. Networks in the 90s • Explosive growth in technology • WAN speeds mainly due to fibre • Qualitative jump in access capability LAN, PSTN, Cable, ISDN, xDSL, wireless, power line carrier • Huge numbers of workstations due to cost and functionality of workstations, WWW applications • Resulted in large number of problems to be solved at all levels, in commercial arena • Technology, protocols, services, management ACMKeynote

16. US Testbeds in Early ‘90s • DARPA concentrated on technology ones • Only multicast conferencing application on Dartnet • Limited applications on Gigabit - but built up carrier partnerships and national coverage by stealth • NSF really concentrated on Supercomputers, measurement and management of divestiture • ATDNET and VBNS became real testbeds - • VBNS moved to networks to support research • VBNS has limited international component ACMKeynote

17. Testbeds in the 90s • Both technology and application testbeds were clearly needed, first tried to combine • ACTS and Gigabit tried to push technology and applications. Seldom worked with applications • SuperJanet promised to provide research part, it could not provide it because of conferencing • Some provided related networks, with one emphasising technology, another applications • CA*Net, SURFNET, parts of DFN did well here ACMKeynote

18. Other Testbeds in early ‘90s • Most of these testbeds were mainly national • US ones were thus, with only some lower speed VBNS international services for supercomputers • CA*net-3, Berkom, SURFNET have/had strong testbed components, most others are only networks to support research • Recently fibre is being installed in such large bundles, that there is spare capacity • These were first used in Gigabit and Berkom in 91; it continued with most current high-speed testbeds ACMKeynote

19. Later 90s Testbeds • Some high capacity fibre networks have been possible at non-commercial tariffs because: • Availability of fibre not yet needed commercially • Most Carriers see that they will have to have Internet technology, but many do not know its capabilities at high speed and size • They do not want, or cannot yet, offer these services to all commercial customers • Outside the US these partnerships are usually national, involve only one carrier, and limited • JAMES and CANTAT-3 in ‘96 were exceptions ACMKeynote

20. European National Hosts • In 1994, the ACTS programme planned to provide National Hosts (NHs) • NHs were to be connected together, and to provide more general facilities • National Networks to support research • To support EU researchers to collaborate • National Research Networks • Mobile telephone, satellite, etc • In practice only the first two existed • Costs limited their use by industrial partners ACMKeynote

21. US Testbeds • Internet-2 is planned to be an advanced testbed for networking and applications • There will be very broad connectivity for special applications • DARPA technology testbeds supplement it • with very high speeds, advanced technology, high reliability, active network elements, etc. • Most technology testbeds will be national, Internet-2 will have international links ACMKeynote

22. Testbeds outside the US • Most of the testbeds are purely national • This is partly geographic, partly political, partly the very high local international tariffs • Some will connect to the US via STAR-TAP • In Europe there is enough concentration to discuss a regional equivalent to Internet 2 • National issues may decide what form it should be • The Quantum project is the current interim ACMKeynote

23. The Quantum Project • This is an interim three year project, partly funded by the European Union IST program • Mainly to provide stable links to National nets to support research at OC-3, and OC-12 by 2001 • Has a number of planned working groups like those in Internet-2 • Has a limited (a few Mbps) VPN capability - available for specific short experiments • Should support EU IST researchers also • Will have US, Japanese and East European links ACMKeynote

24. Schematic of TEN-155 ACMKeynote

25. National vs International Testbeds • Pure technology testbeds can usually be national • Even here considerations from other countries may broaden both thinking and applicability • International involvement may speed up broad acceptance of the concepts • International testbeds are more costly and complex; benefits must be justified ACMKeynote

26. Aspects of International Testbeds • Size and speed - to allow exploration of scaling • Heterogeneity - to allow different features environments and concepts to be explored • Availability - to permit applications to be built with the stress of real use • Sensible duration - to justify the effort by all who must commit to its success • User Commitment and Need- to ensure that the testbed is really exercised • Usually Multi-Carrier- because of the user com-munities in the different countries ACMKeynote

27. Is TEN-155 such a testbed • TEN-155 has purchased bandwidth on a quasi-commercial basis • Cheaper than earlier, no comparison with Abilene • The need for stable services means real experimentation is very difficult • It is really meant for better standard services • It will try to provide advanced services, as long as they do not interfere with other service • In its present form it cannot be a real testbed ACMKeynote

28. Internet-2 Internationalisation • Internet-2 has large support from Qwest, Nortel and Cisco. • It will be a high-capacity, application testbed • It will peer with many US networks • Via STAR-TAP/STAR-NODE will have several international connections • Has advanced programmes in QoS, IPv6, network storage, TV and Video, etc ACMKeynote

29. Groups joining Internet-2 ACMKeynote

30. Needs in a Global Testbed • Enough research bandwidth to allow both advanced services and experimentation • A variety of access technologies and probably backbone technologies • Pure advanced technology can be done nationally • Impacts of satellites (LEO and DBS), mobile, xDSL, IPv6, secure infrastructures, QoS all vital • Over-provisioning of bandwidth • Possible at some cost to availability ACMKeynote

31. Current Window of Opportunity • Over-provision of fibre • Temporary in Europe and internationally • Many national testbeds that could be added • Strong commercial interest in the questions that such a testbed could answer • Strong need for specific applications • e.g. HEP, earth observation, conferencing • Willingness by at least some large firms to participate as in Internet-2 • Certainly EU Call which includes testbeds ACMKeynote

32. Proposed Project • An international initiative - at least by end 2000 • 15 countries in America, Asia, Australia and Europe • 10 terrestrial carriers participate,with six firms to provide switches, routers, Muxes, NOCs • 3 each of mobile, DBS, LEO and Cable operators • By the end of 2001, at least the following • OC-12 on major oceanic routes, OC-3 to national nets for experimentation • Able to fully participate in Internet-2 activities • Mobile terminals, UMTS, DBS facilities ACMKeynote

33. Proposed Target by End 2001 • Testbed service allowing 20-person, high bandwidth secured multicast conference • Mobile at a few hundred Kbps in 4 countries • Terrestrial at 10-20 Mbps over normal LANs • xDSL over telephone and cable into a QoS VPN • Use IPv6, QoS, IPSEC, Mobile IP, rugged M/c • Watched by 400 in ten countries, some with poorer communications and limited audio via I/N ACMKeynote

34. Potential Problems • Would need several carriers • Not clear who would agree to participate together • Regulations may forbid discrimination/cartel • Must be arranged that participation in a cost-shared project would not incur penalties • Carriers often want only short-term projects • Would have to give longer commitment, even if there are changes in organisational structure • Funders must be prepared to see even international bandwidth under-used ACMKeynote

35. Conclusions • Now is time for a large-scale research testbed • Link in National technology & applications testbeds • It should be wider in concept than Internet-2 • Including many maturing advanced technologies • Heterogeneity in infrastructure and suppliers good • Include academia, industry & government • Easing Regulatory constraints if necessary • Preferably partnership not formal tender ACMKeynote

36. The Future • Early indications from some possible industrial participants show strong interest • Let us try to bring in areas of the world currently left out • Let us start the new Millenium with making such a global projects a reality ACMKeynote