1 / 17

CA*net 4 A Network for Grids using Grid Technology

CA*net 4 A Network for Grids using Grid Technology. Bill St. Arnaud CANARIE Inc – www.canarie.ca Bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca. CA*net 4 Drivers-1. Set up lightpaths to no cost peering exchanges Most lambda sales in Canada and USA are for “Remote peering” to no cost peering points

clover
Télécharger la présentation

CA*net 4 A Network for Grids using Grid Technology

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. CA*net 4 A Network for Grids using Grid Technology Bill St. Arnaud CANARIE Inc – www.canarie.ca Bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca

  2. CA*net 4 Drivers-1 • Set up lightpaths to no cost peering exchanges • Most lambda sales in Canada and USA are for “Remote peering” to no cost peering points • Allows for considerable savings in Internet transit costs • Each lightpath is directly connected to a high volume peer and bypasses peering router • Good example is “STAR LIGHT” where high volume peers have direct connect and small volume peers use a router • CA*net 4 “customer controlled patch panel” allows peers to change peering relationship remotely without contacting technical staff at peering exchange • Very similar in concept to WorldCom “Peermaker” at MAE-E and MAE-W

  3. CA*net 4 Drivers-2 • Eliminate expensive high end routers and replace them with lower cost optical switches • But circuits are NOT intended to replace packet networks • Use rich mesh of circuits between edge routers to eliminate high cost of 10GbE core routers • 10Gbe routers ~ $500K with interfaces at ~$200k each • 10Gbe switches ~$25K with interfaces at ~$20k each • Trade off between cost of multiple lightpaths versus cost of high end core routers • 10Gbe wavelengths ~$1000/km for 5 years (lifetime of router) • Assume 1 GbE lightpaths per edge institution then • One 5000km Gbe lightpath (or 8 x 600km GbE) lightpaths per institution is cheaper than routers • But hard to create a full mesh – so let institutions or end user create and control partial mesh • Disadvantage is no sharing of bandwidth with stat muxing

  4. CA*net 4 Drivers-3 • Allows customer to create “customer owned and managed” networks with resource heterogeneity • Integration of wavelengths and dark fiber from different carriers • Create customer controlled VPNs for downstream users and overlay networks across multiple suppliers • Customers can manage their own restoral and protection schemes • Allows for inter-domain end to end setup of VPNs • End users do not need to to signal carrier for VPN management • Create VPNs • Cross connect VPNs from independent users • Partition or spawn VPNs • Establish VPNs across multiple management domains

  5. CA*net 4 Drivers-4 • Lambda Grids - “Underlay” networks to support Grids and overlay projects like PlanetLab and Oceanstore • A lot of exciting research into overlay networks • At some point in time when traffic volume is sufficient in overlay network to setup its own direct path • Soon high end grid applications will have sufficient traffic volume to require their own underlay networks ”Complementing” routed networks • Not a replacement for routed networks – only increasing the direct peering mesh of the routed network • But peering may be more dynamic (and not globally advertised) than traditional IP BGP peering • Discipline or applications specific networks • VBLI grids like European EVN • High energy physics grid – Ultralight • NEES grid, Bio-informatics Grid, etc

  6. NORDUnet JANET SURFnet PSNC DFN GARR Example – EVN traffic flows over GEANT SE UK JIVE PL CZ BE NL DE2 DE1 FR CH AT 256M 512M ? 1G  2.5G 10G IT Provided courtesy of Dai Davies

  7. Issues • How do you charge for bandwidth and usage when single application traffic dwarfs all other IP traffic? • Who pays for the traffic volume when it sinks into POP? • Possible solutions: • GMPLS (with QoS) • Requires expensive routers and complex coordinated central management to setup and tear down tunnels • Does not address issue of traffic charging • Interdomain still unproven • Optical overlay/underlay –ASON – same problems as GMPLS • Application specific optical BGP networks

  8. CA*net 4 Drivers-5 • Spatial QoS • TCP throughput over long fat pipes very susceptible to packet loss, MTU, TCP kernel, Buffer memory, AQM optimized for commodity Internet, Auto negotiating Ethernet, etc • May also require consistent and similar TCP throughput for multiple sites to maintain coherency for grids and SANs • Some exciting new TCP protocols like FAST, XCP, etc • Mice and Elephant problem • Without careful design may look like a DOS attack on a router network • Many commercial SAN/Grid products will only work with QoS network • Some users want to have super jumbo MTU (64K) or protocols other than IP

  9. Spatial QoS Normal BGP path y.y.y.1 x.x.x.1 Optical “Peermaker” Only y.y.y.1 advertised to x.x.x.1 via OBGP path Only x.x.x.1 advertised to y.y.y.1 via OBGP path OBGP path Application or end user controls peering of BGP optical paths for transfer of elephants!!!

  10. NORDUnet JANET SURFnet PSNC DFN GARR OBGP applied to EVN SE JIVE UK PL CZ BE NL DE2 DE1 FR CH AT IT

  11. CA*net 4 Drivers 6 • Extend the Internet end to end principle to circuit based networks • The success of the Internet is largely attributable to the e2e principle • No state maintained in the network • Allowed development of exciting new applications or services • Can the same principles be applied to circuit based networks? • Will it engender the same creativity in new applications and services? • MPLS and ASON are classic network state based solutions for VPNs • CA*net 4 architecture is an alternate approach • All VPNs are BGP direct static routes using lightpaths

  12. CA*net 4 is NOT a network • It is an aggregation of point to point 10 Gbps wavelengths from a number of carriers • CA*net 4 is made up of may parallel networks • The wavelengths and switches are partitioned into smaller lightpaths user control of the switch partition which are used for a variety of applications particularly grids • International Grid Testbed – 10 Gbe server to server to CERN • WESTgrid – 1 Gbe lightpaths for distributed backplane • CA*net 4 IP network – traditional IP hierarchical routed network • Numerous lightpaths to support direct peering between regional networks and universities • Lightpaths to support Terabyte file transfer from CERN for high energy physics that bypasses all routers • Lightpaths to support TransLight projects between North America, Europe and Asia • Many, many more coming – Virtual Astronomy, HDTV video walls, etc

  13. Grid Application User Access Layer Grid Service Interface J2EE Application Server LPO Service EJBHome GT3 Hosting Environment LPO Grid Service LPO Factory Service LPO Service Implemen- tation RMI LPO Service EJBRemote LPO Delegate Service RMI JDBC RMI DB Resource Management Layer Create service Access service Service Provisioning Layer

  14. OGSI-conformant services OGSI-conformant services • LPO advertisement • LPO query • LPO termination • LPO access • LPO reconfiguration • LPO spawning • LPO concatenation • End-to-end LPO establishment

  15. RMI Service Provisioning Layer Resource Agent Request Controller LPO Controller LPO Controller LPO Controller LPO Controller Programmable Controller LPO Space LPO Controller RMI Switch Interface TL1 CA*net 4 Resource Management Layer

  16. More Information • http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/canet4design.html • http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/obgp/index.html • http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/customer.html • Thanks to the design teams at Carleton U, Ottawa U, CRC, UQAM, UoWaterloo, Montague, etc

More Related