1 / 9

Enhancing Diversity in Inter-continental Links for R&E Networks

This discussion addresses the urgent need for greater diversity in inter-continental links among research and education (R&E) network operators. It highlights the current lack of coordination in link procurement, which can lead to multiple networks relying on the same physical cables, increasing vulnerability. Key questions include how to obtain and share information about cable usage, the feasibility of prioritizing diversity in procurement, and the potential of enhancing routing policies. The aim is to improve resilience and connectivity across global research networks.

charlotte-vance
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Diversity in Inter-continental Links for R&E Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CCIRN topic: diversity of inter-continental links Heather Boyles, Internet2 heather@internet2.edu

  2. Topic of Coordination for CCIRN? • Should we as R&E network operators do something about achieving more diversity in our inter-continental links connecting our respective networks?

  3. Issues • Currently no real coordination between R&E networks in procurement • often not aware of what cables others' links are being provisioned on • where multiple entities procuring for same route (e.g. Amsterdam-New York or Tokyo-LA), it could be that all of our circuits are on the same physical cable (even if procured from different vendors) • move to 'unprotected' circuits from vendors means more relying on backup with each other (e.g. JGN2 and TransPAC2, GEANT and NSF IRNC-funded links)

  4. Questions • Can we get information from vendors about which cable our circuits are on? (yes, seems to be the answer) • How to capture that information and share? • Are there issues in sharing publicly? • Can we get those procuring circuits to consider diversity as a desirable feature or a proposal? • At what point in process is this information useful? • Is it worth the effort? How big of an issue is this? • for routed IP, maybe not:  enough multiple interconnections and open transit in R&E network community that occasionally cable outages don't mean complete unreachability (see the Taiwan straits case from New Year's 2007) - maybe just need more open transit policies, routing coordination • for circuit services, maybe so:  less re-routablity (since not using IP routing)?

  5. GEANT2 and other trans Atlantic links Courtesy: Guy Roberts, DANTE

  6. Courtesy: Dan Nae, CalTech Circuit Status NYC 111 8th Bellport NYC-MANLAN Bude Whitesands AC-2 AMS-SARA VSNL North VSNL Frankfurt Highbridge GVA-CERN NY60 Hudson Wal, NJ CHI-Starlight VSNL South Paris Global Crossing Qwest Pottington (UK) Colt London Atlantic Ocean GEANT • Unprotected circuits (lower cost) • Service availability from provider’s offers: • Colt Target Service Availability is 99.5% • Global Crossing guarantees Wave Availability at 98% • Canarie and GEANT: No Service Level Agreement (SLA) LCG Availability requirement: 99.95% LHC OPN Meeting, Munich

  7. Vendor Usage in Atlantic • Global Crossing • SURFnet (1) • IRNC (1) (procured by SURFnet) • Internet2 • CANARIE • VSNL • IRNC ( • IEEAF • GEANT2 • LHCnet (one on north, one on south) • FLAG • GEANT2 • T-Systems • GEANT2 • Qwest • LHCnet (Yellow/AC-2)

  8. Cable Usage in the Atlantic • VSNL North • VSNL South • AC-2/Yellow • FLAG Atlantic-1 (FA 1) • AC-1 • North • South • TAT14

  9. Pacific Diversity • George…..

More Related