The Evolution of Internet2: 1996-2010

1. The Evolution of Internet2: 1996-2010 Douglas Van Houweling CEO, Internet2 May 2010 TERENA

2. 1996: The Internet2 “Project” • 34 research university CIOs • Commit $25,000 annual membership, $1M annual institutional investment • Required to fill the vacuum left when NSFNet project terminated • A project of EDUCOM • Used the National Science Foundation vBNS for connectivity

3. 1997: The University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development • Home to the Internet2 project • Approximately 100 members • Corporations and laboratories added • NSF High Performance Connections Program • Quality of Service -- QBone • International collaboration • Applications support

4. I2 Interconnect Cloud Internet2 Network Architecture GigaPoP One GigaPoP Two GigaPoP Four GigaPoP Three “Gigabit capacity point of presence” an aggregation point for regional connectivity

5. I2 Interconnect Cloud GigaPoPs, cont. University A GigaPoP One Commodity Internet Connections Regional Network University B University C

6. 1998: Abilene • April White House announcement with VP Gore • Partnership with Qwest, Nortel & Cisco • 2.5 Gb national reach • Connects regional networks and universities • NSF High Performance Connections Program

7. 1999: Middleware, Network Performance & Growth • Middleware • Early Harvest workshop • Trusted multi-institutional authentication • End-to-end performance initiative • 24 International MOUs • 249 Members

8. 2000-1: Beyond the University • Sponsored Network Access • Schools and small colleges • Libraries • Museums and concert halls • The Quilt • Arts & Humanities Initiative • Health Sciences Initiative • National Laboratories

9. 2002-7 Optical Networking • FiberCo • National LambdaRail • Abilene -> 10 Gb • Hybrid Optical and Packet Infrastructure (HOPI) Initiative • The New Internet2 Network • ESNet Partnership

10. 2002-9 Middleware Invention -> Deployment • Middleware Workshops • OpenSAML • Shibboleth • InCommon Federation • Signet Privilege Management • Grouper Group Management • InCommon Steering Committee

11. 2006-8 Reformed Governance, Membership, and Strategy • Community divided between Internet2 and National LambdaRail • Merger unsuccessful • Internet2 response • Include regional network members • Democratize and expand governance structure • Community-based strategic plan

12. 2009-10 New National Focus • The FCC National Broadband Plan • “Anchor institution” networking market failure • Build on higher ed networking experience • The Department of Commerce Broadband Technology Opportunities Program • Regional network projects • Internet2/NLR/Northern Tier US UCAN Proposal

13. What Have We Learned? • Stay at the leading edge • Late to optical networking • Build trust • A consortium, not a corporation • Focus on community needs • What members can’t do for themselves • Never stop changing

14. The Internet2 Research and Development Agenda for 2010: The Year of End to End Deployment Randall Frank Chief Technology Officer, Internet2 May 2010 TERENA

15. Being Honest With Ourselves • Lots of great advanced technology out there deployed in pockets • Great at custom demos that show off incredible bandwidth, high quality video, seemless authentication, … • Not so great at making this all available to normal end users at their desks • Users often need to become network experts to make all of this work

16. Example Technologies • High performance networking (reserved bandwidth, predictable QoS) • Performance monitoring • Federated Authentication (InCommon)

17. What’s missing? • Predictable deployment in a large scale end to end environment • Technologies that work across the incredible diversity of networking infrastructures that are present within the R&E community • Troubleshooting tools that enable end user to know what to do when things don’t work

18. 2010: Concerted Effort to Move from Demos to Production • Previous model: we did our work in the network core, now if only campuses and regionals would do their part… • New model: joint effort to make technology work end to end • Work with campuses and regionals to develop plans for funding and deployment

19. High Performance Networking • Goal: allow research users access to predictable high performance/high bandwidth flows • Allow network be better handle needs of research users by capacity reservation

20. Some Experiments didn’t have right scaling/deployment characteristics • Implemented separate circuit based network for reserved capacity • Required separate interface(s) for downstream networks • Didn’t integrate into financial or operational model, not financially viable given current funding models • Didn’t deal with campus/regional issues • Physical vs. virtualized services • Required users to become network experts

21. Layer 2 frame Over MPLS IP MPLS w/ Res’v b/w Best effort IP

22. DCN Control Plane

23. Performance Measurement Perfsonar Widely adopted framework for exchange of network measurement data Joint development of ESNET, Internet2, GEANT2, RNP and others Goal: allows users world-wide to obtain data on end-end performance of a network path

24. Successes Gaining widespread acceptance across diverse networks and communities Extensive deployment within some networks (e.g., ESNET)

25. Limitations Not ubiquitous – users can’t rely on available of data collection points Implementation somewhat complex Lack of standard, low cost deployment devices Authorization environment still lags End user friendly analysis tools

26. 2010 Goals Low cost deployment kits Work with (virtual) communities to spur deployment Partner with other orgs that have specialized expertise (Gloriad, IRNC funded circuits) Work with vendors to build Perfsonar collection into network devices

27. Authentication Shiboleth: international R&E standard for federated authentication Each campus continues to use local authentication environment SAML based Allow inter-campus trust (within federation) of other campus authentication assertions InCommon: US Federation, 300+ campuses

28. US-wide certificate service • Based heavily on TERENA program with COMODO (Thank you!) • Campuses sign-up directly with InCommon for fixed annual fee • Summer 2010 SSL certificates • Fall 2010 user (signing and encryption) certificates • Campuses choice in COMODO GUI (CCM) or API development

29. Goals for 2010 “productize” InCommon Federation in US Gain acceptance outside of R&E for R&E authentication US Federal government acceptance of InCommon for US Gov’t authentication of academic users Eduroam testing in US Expansion of services using Shib Today primarily web based authentication Deployment within other API services (e.g., Perfsonar)

30. Thank You