260 likes | 413 Views
Research & Academic Networks in the US. Phil DeMar Fermilab 6/25/99. U.S. Research Networks:. Internet-2 Networks: Internet-2 Backbone Networks: The vBNS (sort of…) Abilene Internet-2 GigaPoPs Federal Government Program Networks: ESnet NREN (NASA), DREN (DOD), etc.
E N D
Research & Academic Networks in the US Phil DeMar Fermilab 6/25/99
U.S. Research Networks: • Internet-2 Networks: • Internet-2 Backbone Networks: • The vBNS (sort of…) • Abilene • Internet-2 GigaPoPs • Federal Government Program Networks: • ESnet • NREN (NASA), DREN (DOD), etc. • Commercial Internet Service Providers. Phil DeMar
Internet-2: • A project by a consortium of universities (UCAID) to: • foster development of advanced internet applications; • foster development internet technology itself; • provide a high performance network for general research. • Not a network itself: • a project to foster development of very high performance networks: • The NSF-funded vBNS evolved into a ‘pre’ Internet-2 backbone; • Abilene is the UCAID-sponsored Internet-2 backbone. • Not a Government project; no direct Federal subsidy... Phil DeMar
Internet-2 (cont.): • UCAID now has 150 members: • Membership limited to U.S. research universities; • But other networks can connect as affiliates; • U.S. National Labs are not members of UCAID: • National Lab Internet-2 participation assumed thru ESnet. • Internet-2 Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) prohibits transit traffic between affiliates: • ESnet site to Internet-2 member site is ‘OK’; • ESnet site to other affiliated network site via Internet-2 backbone is NOT permitted. Phil DeMar
Internet-2 (cont.): • Internet-2 AUP also prohibits “commodity” internet traffic! • Traffic to another Internet-2 site via Internet-2 backbone; • Traffic to a non-Internet-2 site via commercial ISP; • University needs 2nd Internet “path” for commodity traffic. Phil DeMar
GigaPoPs (cont.): • The Internet-2 model envisions “GigaPoPs” to deal with AUP issues. • Regional aggregation “networks” formed by Internet2 universities to connect to high performance networks; • MREN (Chicago) & Cal-REN2 (California) are examples. • Designed/managed by the local GigaPoP consortium: • Usually designed/managed by major research universities; • Architectures vary widely: • MREN is centralized (ATM switch); • Cal-REN2 is distributed (SONET ring). • Some have central routing support; many others do not... • 30 GigaPoPs now in existance: • Already double the number (~15) initially envisioned. Phil DeMar
GigaPoPs (cont.): • Support university connections to: • Internet-2 backbones • Commodity ISPs • Envisioned to connect to multiple Internet-2 networks & commercial ISPs: • universities would be able to choose or change its ISP or I-2 provider easily... • May also connect directly to other research networks (ESnet): • although indirect access via Internet-2 backbone works too... Phil DeMar
Next Generation Internet (NGI): • NGI is Government initiative to foster development & deployment of next generation internet technologies. • NGI = $$$. • National Science Foundation is lead agency ($45M): • University High Performance Connections $19M/year • vBNS network (Internet-2 backbone) $10M/year • Internet Technologies Program $7.5M/year • International Connections $ 6M/year • NLANR $2.5M/year • DARPA, DOD, DOE, NASA, NIH also have been given NGI funding: • Government agency research networks (ie., ESnet) also considered elements of NGI, but get no special $$$. Phil DeMar
NGI (cont.): • High Performance Connection awards used to subsidize university connection costs to Internet-2 backbones: • Universities are supposed to upgrade their LANs accordingly. • NGI isn’t just network infrastructure, but is increasingly focused at the middleware & application levels: • NSF is ending major infrastructure subsidies on 3/31/99. • Some concerns about the status of NGI: • Utilization rates are low; • Development of advanced network services & network-aware applications has been very slow; • Users aren’t knowledgeable on using I2 networks effectively; • Question: what is NGI providing that commercial ISPs can’t? Phil DeMar
The vBNS: • A remnant of NSF’s post-NSFnet networking activities. • ATM-based OC12 (622Mbps) backbone, but adding OC48 (2.4 Gbps) IP-over-SONET segments to the backbone: • DS3 (45Mbps) is the minimum connection line speed; • 98 connections as of 6/15, with 7 more pending; • Run by MCI; subsidized out of NSF NGI funds; • NSF vBNS contract expires 4/1/00; • probably not renewed; but NSF does have a two year option; • MCI says that vBNS will continue beyond 4/00 as vBNS+: • vBNS+ will have looser AUP & lower connection line speeds. Phil DeMar
vBNS Logical Topology: Phil DeMar
vBNS Backbone Topology: Phil DeMar
Abilene: • A UCAID-sponsored Internet-2 backbone project just coming into existance: • in partnership with QWEST, Cisco, Nortel, & Indiana U. • OC48 (2.4Gb/s) packet-over-SONET backbone: • OC3 is the minimum connection line speed; • connection fee based on GigaPOP connections, not individual sites. • Bandwidth donated by Qwest (for five years…): • 10 Abilene POPs with IP-over-SONET routers on Qwest backbone; • But GigaPOPs need only get to the closest Qwest POP (120 in the U.S.) for their connection to Abilene. Phil DeMar
Abilene Topology: Phil DeMar
vBNS & Abilene: • vBNS & Abilene AUPs allow sites on one network full access to all sites attached to the other: • Implies ease in migrating service from one to the other. • vBNS & Abilene peer at the Chicago NAP: • Interconnection link is OC12 (almost…); • Other peering points (the NGIXes…) to follow. • vBNS supports nearly all the Internet-2 sites today: • Abilene just starting to ramp up its operation: • Only a small number of Internet-2 sites connected to and using Abilene right now. Phil DeMar
vBNS & Abilene (cont.): • Current cost model favors Abilene: • Abilene ‘model’ is for attachment via GigaPOP, not individual university links: • Cost of aggregated bandwidth to nearest Qwest POP is shared among GigaPOP members; • Abilene connection charge ($110k/OC3 or $320k/OC12) is also shared among GigaPOP members. • vBNS ‘model’ is based on individual site connections: • Connection charges are similar, but not shared. • UCAID (Internet-2) want government subsidies to vBNS stopped: • But they also want the vBNS to stay around…(?) Phil DeMar
ESnet: • ESnet = U.S. Dept. of Energy’s network supporting it’s energy research programs: • ATM-based architecture; full mesh PVCs, meaning every backbone site has a virtual circuit to all the other ones; • High bandwidth Internet access for the major U.S. HEP facilities: • AUP allows only DOE-funded energy research related traffic: • By definition, an ESnet HEP site’s traffic is ER-related; • But transit traffic is not allowed. Phil DeMar
ESnet Topology: Phil DeMar
ESnet Peering with other ISPs: Phil DeMar
ESnet Status: • Performance across ESnet continues to be excellent: • Backbone is “over-engineered” for high quality service; • Once your data gets off of ESnet, performance may vary… • ESnet using Internet-2 to improve university access: • Peering with vBNS & Abilene in several locations; • ESnet establishing links to (some...) GigaPoPs. • University connections to ESnet are being discouraged: • Universities on the ESnet backbone being encouraged to use Internet-2 or local GigaPoP for ESnet peering. Phil DeMar
ESnet Status (cont.): • New ESnet (ESnet3) contract to be awarded this fall: • Bid specs are very broad; architecture is therefore unclear; • Existing Sprint ATM contract remains in effect for another year: • ESnet envisions a year-long phased migration to ESnet3; • Two contracts means tight funding for the coming fiscal year. • Planned ESnet upgrades of interest to HEP: • SLAC connection to OC3 within a month or two; • BNL connection to OC3 when ESnet NY PoP gets installed at 60 Hudson in downtown NY (3-6 months). • ESnet ‘considering’ an ATM PVC-based testbed network for providing differentiated network services to sites. Phil DeMar
NGIXes: • NGIX = Next Generation Internet Exchange: • Establishes location for Federal (NGI) networks to interconnect: • Washington, DC • Chicago Network Access Point (NAP) [StarTAP…] • San Francisco (Fix West) • Abilene, although not a Federal network is included. • ESnet, vBNS, & Abilene will be at all three NGIXes: • Current vBNS/Abilene peering at Chi. NAP only at OC3; • ESnet peers with both at several locations & where convenient... Phil DeMar
Commercial ISPs • A sizeable subset of US HEP universities still rely solely on commercial ISPs for internet access: • Internet-2 participation, even subsidized, isn’t cheap... • Quality of US commercial Internet Service is improved: • Commercial ISPs have been keeping their backbone capacity in line with (or ahead of…) demand; • Network Access Point (NAP) congestion is down. • From layer-3 down, ISPs match research networks technologically: • ISPs are ahead in rollout of high bandwidth links; • ISPs aggressively pursuing differentiated network services. Phil DeMar
Issues:<Opinion, not necessarily fact> • Internet-2 could create the potential for ‘haves’ vs. ‘have-nots’ HEP universities • But Internet-2 participation is becoming more widespread; • Is commercial ISP access, while not optimal, good enough? • Whither the vBNS? • NSF wants the vBNS to continue operation; • but continued subsidy after 3/31/00 seems unlikely; • The bottom line is that the vBNS isn’t cost competitive with Abilene…. Phil DeMar
Issues (cont.):<Still opinion, not to be confused with fact> • Whither NGI? • Definitely a shift away from network infrastructure to development of middleware & network applications; • Much more emphasis on user education on how to effectively use high performance networks. • A glut of available WAN bandwidth could change the U.S. network environment in unanticipated ways: • The local loop (the last kilometer) problem will lessen the impact of surplus bandwidth in the WAN. • ATM in the WAN becomes more difficult at higher line speeds (SAR problem…): • Dependency on an underlying ATM infrastructure may not be prudent for long term planning. Phil DeMar
Summary: • The network environment for HEP research in the U.S. continues to improve in virtually all areas… • The Internet-2 project is already having positive results for collaborative research: • More research universities have high bandwidth, low latency access to major U.S. research facilities; • Mission-specific research networks have something to direct improving university access efforts at…; • Testbed projects emerging for new network technologies. Phil DeMar