Interoperability of Lightpath Provisioning Systems in a Multi-domain Testbed

1. Interoperability of Lightpath Provisioning Systems in a Multi-domain Testbed Fred Wan Paola Grosso Cees de Laat University of Amsterdam System and Network Engineering research group in collaboration with SURFnet

2. Overview • Background • E-science and dynamic resource allocation and provisioning • NRENs • Lightpaths/deterministic paths • Network Resource Provisioning Systems (NRPSs) • Harmony and IDC • Phosphorus project: Harmony Network-Service Plane • Dante/Internet2/Canarie/ESnet IDC • Network service- and control-planes • General NRPS architecture • Interoperability requirements • Harmony-IDC interoperability (detailed) • Conclusions and future work

3. Dynamic Resource Allocation and Provisioning • National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) facilitate data transport between • compute resources • scientific instruments • data-storage • distributed measurement equipment • Dynamic resource allocation: The network as a dynamic resource • Efforts to combine international e-science resources: • EU projects Phosphorus (finished), Geysers (current), FEDERICA, Panlab, FIRE, etc. • US projects, e.g. GENI • Problem: how to combine, allocate and control the inter-NREN network? • Current status: manually by NREN NOCs • Goal: automate request processing for network connections (advance reservation and provisioning)

4. GLIF and GOLEs • Global Lambda Integrated Facility • Virtual international organization promoting paradigm of lambda networking • Collaborative initiative among worldwide NRENs, consortia and institutions • World-scale Lambda based Laboratory to facilitate application and middleware development • GOLE – GLIF Open Lightpath Exchange • Peering point for lightpaths • Global model: MANLAN, NetherLight, UKLight, Starlight, NorthernLight, … • Open anyone can bring lambdas • Lambda owner controls port • GOLE owner makes cross connects happen • Limitations only in technology

5. GLIF: Global Lambda Integrated Facility http://www.glif.is

6. GLIF Europe Global Open Lightpath Exchanges (GOLEs): NetherLight NorthernLight CERNLight

7. Netherlight GOLE: Global Open Lightpath Exchange

8. Connection requirements and Control • Overprovisioning best-effort networks does not work • Requirements: • deterministic bandwidth • point to point connection • capacity and timeliness guarantees when transferring large chunks asynchronously • Bandwidth guarantees and jitter-free transport when transferring synchronously • Available technologies: GMPLS, WDM, TDM (layer 1) and PBT (layer 2) • TDM: provision a number of VC-4 (or other capacity) channels by creating cross connects on the switches comprising the path • Configuration: CLI, TL1, SNMP • Integrate NEs into workflow: Network Resource Provisioning Systems (NRPSs) so lightpaths can be reserved in advance • General design abstracted from various implementations

9. General inter-domain NSP design and implementations Single-domain NRPSs: IDC (Internet2) Multi-domain NSP: OSCARS & DRAGON (IDC)

11. Inter-domain path reservation and provisioning:Two models • Centralized model: unification of request interface through an adaptation layer, overlay topology and central event management • Federated model: uniform request interface, topology exchange and event notification among peers

12. IDC: OSCARS and DRAGON integrationfederated approach

13. Harmony: Phorphorus NSP centralized approach • Reservation WS: • Availability Request • Create Reservation Request • Query Reservation(s) Request • Activate Reservation Request • Cancel Reservation Request • Status Request • Topology WS: • Add domain • Delete domain • Edit domain • Retrieve domain • Add Endpoints • Delete Endpoint • Edit Endpoints • Retrieve Endpoints • Add Link • Delete Link • Edit Link • Retrieve Link

14. Workflow at reservation/activation time

15. Harmony-IDC request translation

16. Phosphorus-Internet2 testbed

17. Topology translation Viola-Internet2 reservation request Web GUI request ->(10.7.11.8, 10.9.2.3) -> Harmony NSP Harmony NSP -> (10.7.11.8, 10.7.12.106) -> VIOLA (ARGON) Harmony NSP -> (10.7.2.6, 10.7.3.2) -> VIOLA (ARGON) Harmony NSP -> (10.9.2.1, 10.9.2.3) -> Internet2 Gateway Internet2 Gateway -> (urn:ogf:network:domain=uvalight.net:node=SURFnet-OME4T_VIOLA:port=s1p3:link=10.9.2.1, urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=LOSA:port=S27135:link=10.100.100.9) -> UvA IDC UvA IDC -> (urn:ogf:network:domain=uvalight.net:node=SURFnetOME4T_I2:port=s10p1:link=10.9.2.3, urn:ogf:network:domain=dcn.internet2.edu:node=LOSA:port=S27135:link=10.100.100.9) -> Internet2 IDC

18. DRAC as the PSS for the OME testbed

19. SC09 and UvA-Internet2 testbed setup

21. Path provisioned with the UvA/I2 IDC PSSs

22. Conclusions and future work • Interoperability between heterogeneous Network Resource Provisioning Systems is possible • An hierarchical model is easiest to realize for heterogeneous NRPSs (lesson learned from Harmony) • A federated model is more flexible (design changes in the interface apply to all instances), has enhanced interoperability and scalability • We have show that mixing the two models is possible, but leads to a lot of ad-hoc solutions • Ideal solution is a standardized Network Service Interface: work underway in the OGF-NSI working group. However: slow progress • Future work: • Investigate automation of GOLES: OGF automated-GOLE WG • Improve the design and application of the current prevalent hierarchical design component: Fenius • Investigate if an IDC service interface can be designed to improve integration with DRAC

23. Questions?Thank you!