Dynamically Provisioned Networks as a Substrate for Science

1. Dynamically Provisioned Networks as a Substrate for Science David Foster CERN

2. Objectives • To explain in a high-level way why dynamic circuits are needed to serve demanding scientific users. • To put the activities into an overall context of global research networking and show the future directions. David Foster, CERN

3. Environment • Science projects are global enterprises • Megascience: LHC, ITER, LoFAR, JIVE, SKA ……. • ESFRI projects funded under FP7: • http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=ri_projects_fp7 • Increasing coordination on an increasingly global scale. • Computing for science is increasingly distributed • Clouds and Grids • People are mobile but lifestyle choice is important • Work anywhere, anytime. • “Think Globally but act Locally” • Open access to information is empowering • “Bring Science to the Scientists” - Bring the best minds to the problem. David Foster, CERN

4. Situation • As perceived by the user community, networks are a victim of their own success • Expected to be transparent. “Networking is not a problem” • Assumed to be infinite and free (or nearly so). • Data volumes are increasing • LHC creates 6-7 PB raw data per year , all 4 experiments together. • CERN generates in total 15 PB of data per year, all 4 experiments together. • The raw data, 6-7PB/year, is distributed and there are more than 120PB/year of data products that are created and stored world-wide. • Other science project collaborations will generate equivalent or more data. David Foster, CERN

5. Characterization of the User Marketplace Cees de Laat http://ext.delaat.net/talks/cdl-2005-02-13.pdf David Foster, CERN

6. Issues With Demanding Users • There are more and more of them. • The swamping of IP infrastructures with traffic from “well connected sites” • Occurs when the capability of a site are approaching that of the routed IP network. • Looks like a “denial of service” to the other users. • Solution 1: Build a bigger routed IP network. • A big investment to solve a problem for relatively few users. • All domains in any end-end path must do the same. • Only temporary, new users will come with bigger requirements. • Solution 2: Give the sites “what they need when they need it”. • May be considered as “Just in time provisioning” • Has led to the circuit approach. David Foster, CERN

7. How Circuits are Used • For efficiently using resources: • Long term or static circuits if the number of sites is small (~10) • Dynamic circuit provisioning for a community that is manageable and has continual needs (~100 sites) • Dynamic circuit provisioning for a large community that has occasional needs (periodic data transfer) • For traffic management: • Separates flows from the general IP infrastructure. David Foster, CERN

8. LHC: Case Study • LHC tier-1 sites are connected at 10G in a semi-mesh. • LHCOPN • Tier-2 sites (originally) needed 1Gbps to realistically be “part of” the grid community. • A dedicated circuit to India enabled and effectively empowered the TIFR. • Now, tier-2 sites are increasingly connected at 10G to be able to dynamically access all data products wherever they are (remember the 120PB/year?) • But connected to where? The association between Tier-1 and Tier-2 has “disappeared”. • All sites must be able to access all sites, so IP is the best fit! • Probably so at 1Gbps/site, but not at 10Gbps/site. • A new approach was needed • LHCONE: http://lhcone.net David Foster, CERN

9. What is LHCONE? • A sociology • Has helped to raise awareness of end site needs. • T2’s in Europe are requesting increasing capacity from the NREN’s • A process • Transatlantic bandwidth review of all R&E circuits • Discussions on really how to make a cross domain network. • Process is perhaps more important than outcome in delivering collaboration and focus • as long as the outcome works! • An architecture • Use of open exchanges to empower networks and users • Use of software for managing network capacity through dynamic provisioning. • OpenFlowis the flavour of the month • A model • The internet-2 OS3E is an open exchange architecture to support all sciences. Experience with LHCONE will be important. David Foster, CERN

10. Open Exchanges • A growing consensus on the way forward • I2 members meeting discussion with Bill St Arnaud. • A paper in preparation on a “definition” • Why is there so much interest? • They promote customised bilateral relationships by the exchange point owner not interfering • “lightweight” rules for connecting, link policies controlled by the link owners. • They have no specific commercial allegiance • So-called “carrier-neutral” • Users of the exchange point (can be NREN’s or end users) like them because they remain in control and directly manage the relationships. • no third-party involvement • They provide the possibility to create diverse solutions by working with different partners. • risk management • They do not impose technical decisions, so everyone can go at their own speed. • Avoids “lowest common denominator” solutions • They allow for organic growth and new entrants are welcome both as exchange operators and connected parties • Avoids single point of failure in the system as a whole • Optical exchanges permit provisioning of circuits of different transport protocols to exchange traffic. • http://www.broadnets.org/2004/workshop-papers/Gridnets/DijkstraF.pdf • They allow for activities to follow means and ambition. • They can be “pay as you go” and not “subscription based” David Foster, CERN

11. To Be Resolved • Costs incurred to connect to an open exchange. • Depends on the exchange operator and the “last mile” provider. • Will be born by the end-site connecting. • Costs incurred to interconnect open exchanges • Currently born by the exchange owners, but is this scalable? • Might be also the responsibility of the science community but they are classically not structured to fund central network resources. • Needs to be more awareness that networks are not free inside the science communities. • Management of multi-domain circuit based infrastructures • Is a hot topic and has been for some time. • Buzzword heaven: Oscars, ION, Dragon, DRAC, Federica, OpenFlow, DICE, NSI … • Many software solutions are used and under development. • But some are moving much faster than others. We need some consolidation. • Somecollaboration activities underway to develop domain interworking. • But we need a more open and inclusive process. • Operations and management processes are still to be agreed. • No real process addressing this at present. David Foster, CERN

12. Summary • Science needs are increasing and diversifying rapidly • Big growth in large international projects in all areas needing global high bandwidth connectivity. • The pressure is to always seek Open, Neutral and Diverse solutions. • The best service at the best price. • Circuit based approaches are inevitable • They address the needs of the network providers to serve the high-end users with resource efficiency and manageability. • The downward pressure on bandwidth costs from commercial operators make them increasingly cost effective. • Open Exchanges are inevitable • Because of the compelling combination of sociological, business and technical rationale. • We are not a strict hierarchy of users, nren’s, operators at world or european level and perhaps becoming less so as time goes on. David Foster, CERN