1 / 89

Oregon's Role in Internet2: A Brief History and Opportunities for Collaboration

This article discusses the history of Internet2 in Oregon, covering topics such as the statewide network NERO, the Oregon Internet Exchange, and the vBNS connection. It also explores potential collaboration opportunities between Oregon and North Dakota.

pbuie
Télécharger la présentation

Oregon's Role in Internet2: A Brief History and Opportunities for Collaboration

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. Internet2 and OregonSoutheast Technology Consortium I2 DayMay 9, 2001 Joe St Sauver, Ph.D. (joe@oregon.uoregon.edu) Computing Center University of Oregon

  2. Background and Introduction • I’m the Assistant Director for Academic User Services, here at the University of Oregon Computing Center in Eugene, and I’d like to thank Bonnie Neas, Assistant VP for Federal Government Relations and Director of Internet Research at NDSU for inviting me to talk to you today. Hopefully the H.323 technology will work well, and hopefully I won’t be called for jury duty. :-)

  3. What My Group and I Do • I run a sort of unusual group here at the CC. In addition to supporting academic users of our large systems and microcomputers, my group and I also produce documentation, maintain the UO home page, run network service boxes (such as Usenet News servers, web cache boxes, ftp archive servers, video servers, etc), handle network abuse and policy issues... and we work on advanced networking issues, such as Internet2.

  4. What We’re Going to Cover Today • The history of Oregon and Internet2… • Some technical areas we’re interested in and working on... • And some opportunities for collaboration between Oregon and North Dakota.

  5. A Brief History Of Internet2 in the State of Oregon Or… “How in the world did UO end up collaborating with/doing/sponsoring all these Internet2-related things?”

  6. Long Long Ago (Back ~1995), Before There Was Internet2... • Oregon had a nice statewide network, the Network for Education and Research in Oregon (NERO), with hub sites in Eugene, Corvallis and Portland, interconnected by OC3 (155 Mbps) and DS3 (45 Mbps) circuits. A nice overview of the early days of NERO, written by Dave Meyer, the guy who built it, is available online athttp://sith.maoz.com/~dmm/i2days/

  7. NERO’s Role • NERO served as the production backbone for Oregon higher education, and also provided a platform for research on the network, and research via the network. • It was one of the earliest statewide ATM networks (it’s now packet over sonet) • It provided both intrastate connectivity and commodity Internet transit service via UUNet and MCI (now CWIX).

  8. Oregon Internet Exchange • Meyer also built out the Oregon Internet Exchange (OIX) at UO, a network meet point where ISPs could come to exchange customer network traffic without paying financial settlements, thereby keeping local traffic local and reducing bandwidth costs. See http://www.oregon-ix.net/ • We’ll talk about how the OIX fits into the larger I2-in-Oregon picture later in this talk

  9. The Original vBNS • In April of 1995, the vBNS became operational. It was originally deployed as a way of providing connectivity between federally funded supercomputing centers at Cornell, Pittsburgh, San Diego, NCAR and NCSA/UIUC, and the four NSF funded network access points. See, for example:http://www.vbns.net/presentations/krnet-tutorial/index.html

  10. The Revised vBNS and the New Connections Program • A presidential review committee looked at the original vBNS, and basically said, “Great, world-class, network. Too bad no one’s using it.” • Ergo, the impetus for the NSF’s New Connections program, and expanded access.

  11. The Original UO/OSU NSF New Connections Application • As part of his work with NERO, Dave Meyer, in conjunction with researchers from Oregon State University, applied for an NSF Connections Grant program grant in 1996. Approval would mean funding, plus eligibility to use the vBNS (very cool!) • That proposal envisioned that UO and OSU would share a single vBNS DS3 (45Mbps), interconnecting the site via NERO.

  12. We Won... • Our application was approved by the NSF in December of 1996 (see: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=9617043).

  13. … And We Lost • However the NSF decided, post hoc, that in fact a separate grant was needed for each school to be connected to the vBNS, even if we planned to share a common connection. • UO and OSU jointly agreed that Oregon State would take the original grant money and the initial vBNS DS3 connection, and UO would reapply during the next round.

  14. And Then We Lost Some More... • We had expected the reapplication to be a relatively routine process and to only cause a short delay, but then funding for the NSF Connections Grants program got tangled up with the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund (the so-called “DNS registration tax”), and the NSF Connections Program was temporarily put on hold.

  15. But Then We Finally Won (Again) • Finally, in September of 1998, UO was approved to connect to the vBNS (see:http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=9729628

  16. Having FINALLY Won... • ... we found the world a different place. • The vBNS had basically priced itself out of the market, and Abilene was then the clear network of choice for new connectors. • ATM had died the death it richly deserved. • Gigapops (like hula hoops) were the big thing (everyone had to have one).

  17. The Changing World (cont.) • OC3 connectivity was suddenly affordable. In fact, changes in prices made it possible for us to get not one, but two Abilene OC3 connections. That multihoming gave us connection diversity and survivability.[We believe that Oregon was the first multihomed site on Abilene.]

  18. But Even After We Got Approved, We Weren’t Done • Our “getting connected to Internet2” saga actually has many more twists and turns. • For example, we almost lost our backhauled connections via the Qwest backbone when USWest was slow to deliver our OC3 local loops, and the Oregon Legislature wanted a NERO bandwidth audit (see https://web-vms.uoregon.edu/~joe/bw2/owen/index.html)

  19. Bottom Line: Oregon Did Finally Get Connected • But when all was said and done, we DID get connected. We ended up with the Oregon Gigapop (OGIG) providing connectivity for the University of Oregon via two Abilene OC3s connections, one to Denver and one to Sacramento (now Sunnyvale). • It look us a while to get there, but we DID get there.

  20. And By Having To Wait, We Ended Up Really Winning • We ended up with 310 Mbps instead of 45 • We ended up with the Oregon Gigapop located in Eugene • And by the time we got on Internet2, I2 was far more practically useful than it had been earlier (remember that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of entities it connects)

  21. And We Made Some Good Friends While We Waited... • For example, following a mandate from the state government that Oregon public telecommunications networks should be aggregated to the maximum extent possible, OPEN (the Oregon Public Education Network, the network serving public K12 institutions in Oregon) joined NERO, and the Oregon state government agency network also joined NERO.

  22. NTIA and K12 • It was also during this period that UO began working with K12 institutions in the south half of the state as part of an NTIA grant program (41-40-94029), creating Lane Education Net (LEN), which eventually got merged into OPEN when the networks consolidated.

  23. And With That Background, The Stage Was Set... • Institutions in the state had I2 connectivity • Grant funding for those connections was only for a limited time… tic, toc, tic, toc... • We had a solid intrastate network connecting the state universities, K12 and state government (including providing commodity Internet for those partners)

  24. The Stage Was Set (continued) • We’d already been working with K12, both via OPEN and as part of the NTIA grant • We had a commodity Internet exchange point • There was a tremendous Internet2 public relations effort, generating a lot of institutional, governmental and public interest

  25. Evolution 1: OSU Leaves The vBNS • Along the way, Oregon State had gotten a supplemental grant to provide additional funding for their vBNS connection, but when that eventually ran out, we began tunneling their Internet2 traffic via NERO to the Oregon Gigapop. • Now OSU pays for one of the two Oregon Gigapop OC3s outright. • OSU represented OGIG’s 2nd participant.

  26. Evolution 2: PREN in Portland • In August of 1999, a consortia of Portland area schools (PSU, OHSU and OGI), known collectively as PREN, applied for an NSF Connections Grant, proposing to connect PREN via donated WCI OC12 connectivity backhauled to UW’s gigapop in Seattle. PREN’s application to the NSF was approved (http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=9975992)

  27. And About The Portland Schools Going North... • We won’t BS you: there was significant concern/angst/debate about the Portland school’s decision to connect via Seattle, rather than via the Oregon Gigapop. • At the same time, we completely understood that it would be very hard to turn down a “free” OC12. • Besides, it wasn’t an either/or situation, at least for Portland State.

  28. Portland State Was In a Unique Position • Like UO and OSU, PSU was a long time NERO partner and already had OC3 class intrastate connectivity. • They could have connectivity via PREN and the UW gigapop in Seattle, but they could also have connectivity from the Oregon Gigapop via NERO.

  29. Portland State:Turned Up Immediately... • So, as soon as the NSF approved PSU for connection to Internet2, the Oregon Gigapop was immediately positioned to provide I2 connectivity for them, as we continue to do to this day. • PSU thus became OGIG’s third participant.

  30. Evolution 3: The I2 Sponsored Participant Program • Meanwhile, Internet2 had announced an interest in accommodating institutions (called “sponsored participants”), which didn’t fit the traditional Internet2 profile (for instance, K12’s, non-Carnegie Research 1/Research 2 schools, etc.). • We were immediately intrigued.

  31. We Submitted An Application for “3” Sponsored Participants • UO immediately submitted an application for “three” sponsored participants:-- the Oregon University System colleges which weren’t yet Internet2 members,-- Oregon’s public K12 network (OPEN), (representing about 600K users), and -- Oregon’s state government agency network.

  32. Onesie-Twosies vs. Groups • Apparently our application for the “three” sponsored participants were something of a bombshell within Internet2, even though we’d alerted I2 to our anticipated approach, and at least some Internet2 staff had said that they thought that that would be fine. • Apparently Internet2 had been planning to handle sponsored participants on a onesie-twosie basis, rather than on a group basis.

  33. Why Did We Apply To Sponsor Groupsof Sites? • We already worked with OPEN and the state government and the other state colleges as group entities. We didn’t want to disaggregate them just for the purpose of applying for I2 connectivity for them. • We felt it was very important to respect existing organizational structures and existing network support structures.

  34. Why Do Groups? (continued) • We also felt that it would be a bad thing from an equity point of view to promote Internet2 to some Oregon K12 schools but not to others, or to promote it to some NERO partners, but not to others. • There was no question that technically networks should interconnect at the Autonomous System level. Each of the three groups was an ASN-level entity.

  35. Why Do Groups? (continued) • There was also the issue that many K12 schools, at the school level, do not have the funds to provide on-site wide area network support staff, nor do they have the money to buy separate dedicated connections. • Doing only some schools but not others would be confusing, and limit opportunities for collaboration, tech transfer, and self-support among Oregon schools

  36. Why Do Groups? (continued) • The paperwork burden would also be essentially the same for any of these: -- all K12 schools in the state of Oregon, or-- a single educational service district, or-- a single school district, or-- a single school, or-- a single school building, SO... • You clearly get the most “bang for your buck” by adding an entire K12 statewide network at a time

  37. The Oregon University System Regional Universities • While the sponsored participant program was getting sorted out within I2, Internet2 did agree to let us reapply to sponsor four individual colleges -- Eastern Oregon University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Southern Oregon University and Western Oregon University -- on a onesie-twosie basis. They were approved and hooked up to the Oregon Gigapop via NERO.

  38. What About K12? Tah Dah...Sponsored Groups (SEGP) • After much process and discussion, Internet2 decided to allow connection of state K12 networks as Sponsored Educational Group Participants (SEGP’s). • Oregon’s statewide K12 network, OPEN, was one of the first five approved (along with Michigan, Missouri, Virginia and Washington State). We are currently completing OPEN’s SEGP paperwork.

  39. Interesting SEGP’isms... • New fee ($30K + $2K * # of US Reps) • SEGP’s can’t include Carnegie Doctoral Research Extensive (old “R1/R2”) schools, nor former members of Internet2 • Internet2 can’t be used to provide intrastate connectivity for SEGP institutions (e.g., no competition with state backbone networks) • Each SEGP must have its own ASN • No new PVCs or BGP peerings for Abilene

  40. Who In Oregon Is Still Not At the Oregon Gigapop? • The smaller private liberal arts colleges in the state aren’t connected to I2 or to NERO • Oregon community colleges aren’t part of NERO, and hence we don’t have a clean way of bringing them in as a group. • State government, while part of NERO, still isn’t eligible for connection to Internet2. • County and municipal governments….

  41. About the Smaller Private Liberal Arts Colleges... • Currently the focus of the latest NSF connections funding program (NSF 01-73) • The tricky part is doing the local loops or intrastate network to get them connected, and the money available ($150K/biennium) may not be enough, particularly when you figure in the likely need for capital investments in hardware for each school

  42. Oregon’s Community Colleges • Tough to partner with them as a group because they have traditionally purchased commodity Internet connectivity directly from commercial network service providers; there is no existing intrastate community college network per se • Some are in geographically challenging locations (e.g., Treasure Valley CC in Ontario, Oregon, near the Idaho border)

  43. What About State Government? • State government was denied participation outright (truly unfortunate, given resources like the state library, state museums, and various research labs), but c’est la vie. • State government COULD be a real ally when it comes to leveraging assets and providing funding • An odd disconnect has the potential to occur

  44. County and Local Government • County and local government agencies aren’t on anyone’s radar right now, but they should be. Why? • Who owns all that right of way that fiber companies need? Yep, the cities and counties do. Who owns all that right of way that maybe YOU’D like to use for your own fiber? Yep, the cities and counties do. • You ignore/forget about your friends in county and local gov’t at your peril.

  45. County and Local Government and Oregon Fiber... • http://www.teleport.com/~samc/telecom/index6.html • http://www.ruralfiber.net/ • http://www.bpa.gov/Corporate/KCC/conferences/fiber/agenda.htm • And for a brief tutorial introduction to fiber: http://cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/summer2000/cnsum2000.pdf at page 18.

  46. Why Did We Bother Telling You This I2 Oral History? • It explains, in part, why we work so hard to share what we’ve been able to build. • It may give you hope: while it hasn’t been easy getting folks connected in Oregon, we HAVE made progress, and you can, too. • It may help you to understand some of what we do, have done, and will do. (It also clearly shows that we’re not done yet.)

  47. Some Technical Areas We’re Currently Working On “How did you pick areas to work on?”“We tried everything, and dropped the stuff that seemed not to work very well.”

  48. Some Examples of Areas We’re Currently Working On • IP Multicast (including SSM) • IPv6 • End to End Performance • Network Measurement • Usenet News • Less-Than-Best Effort Service • I2 Traffic and Commodity Internet Traffic • Routing Issues

  49. IP Multicast • While most Internet traffic is “normal” IPv4 unicast traffic, with bits getting sent from one sender to one receiver, there is an additional type of traffic called “IP multicast.” • IP multicast allows traffic to be efficiently shared among multiple receivers, if your network is configured to support it (as Abilene does, and as your campus can...).

  50. Why Is IP Multicast Important? • IP multicast is important, for example, because it allows institutions to deliver high quality (640x480x30 frames per second) MPEG1 video at 1 to 1.5Mbps to large audiences without crushing the network -- one viewer or ten thousand, the load is the same. • “It just looks like TV on my computer!”

More Related