300 likes | 316 Views
Distributed Monitoring CERNET's experience. Xing Li 2004-07-03. CERNET Transport Network. CERNET IP Backbone. CERNET Statistics. 38 GigaPops distributed in 36 cities , covering all the provinces in Mainland China. 11 national Pops are connected via multiple 2.5Gbps DWDM links
E N D
Distributed Monitoring CERNET's experience Xing Li 2004-07-03
CERNET Statistics • 38GigaPops distributed in 36cities, covering all the provinces in Mainland China. • 11national Pops are connected via multiple 2.5Gbps DWDM links • 27 provincial Pops are connected via multiple 155Mbps SDH links • 1,500 education and research institutions connected • 300 campus networks connect to their nearest Pops via 100Mbps-1Gbps links. • 15 million users
CERNET Distributed Measurement • Provide the high performance, reliable IP backbone service • Survive from the network attack • Run based on self-funded model • Protect mission critical applications • produce research data
Comparison of Current Data and Tools • Netflow • Owamp (One-Way Latency) • Iperf • Traceroute • SNMP Interface Statistics • Internet2 Detective • Multicast Beacon • NTP Stratum 2 Server • Ping/Traceroute V6 Destination
Current Tools and Analysis • Throughput • SNMP interface • passive monitoring • httpd+wget • Delay and Loss • ICMP • Top 20 • passive monitoring • Multicast • Beacon
M2.1 M2.2 s R2.1 12410 R20.1 6509 Passive Monitoring
Correlation Analysis • Delay Matrix • Loss Matrix • Combined Pop Monitoring • Committed bandwidth http performance • Top 20 Warning
Global Internet 20M CERNET 1G Cx Committed bandwidth http performance
Other Tools and Activities • Iperf • NTP • DNS • BGP • tcping • Out of Order Packet • Video Conference • CCERT
Comparison (1) • Netflow • Owamp (One-Way Latency) • Iperf • Traceroute • SNMP Interface Statistics • Internet2 Detective • Multicast Beacon • NTP Stratum 2 Server • Ping/Traceroute V6 Destination
Collection Today: Iperf (Throughput) OWAMP (1-Way Latency, Loss) SNMP Data Anonymized Netflow Data Per Sender, Per Receiver, Per Node Pair IPv4 and IPv6 Collection in the Future NTP (Data) Traceroute BGP Data First Mile Analysis Correlation Today: “Worst 10” Throughputs “Worst 10” Latencies Correlation in the Future: 99th Percentile Throughput over Time Throughput/Loss for all E2E paths using a specific link Commonalities among first mile analyzers Sum of Partial Paths vs. Whole Path Comparison (2)
Analysis Today: Throughput over Time Latency over Time Loss over Time Worrisome Tests? (Any bad apples in “Worst Ten”?) “Not the Network” (If “Worst Ten” is good enough) Analysis in the Future: Latency vs. Loss How good is the network? Do common first mile problems exist? Does a link have problems that only manifest in the long-haul? Is the network delivering the performance required by a funded project? Comparison (3)
Future Work • Expend to the CERNET member universities • IPv6 • New Tools • Data library • International collaboration • APAN • Abilene Observatory