1 / 16

Campus Focused Workshop on Advanced Networking

Campus Focused Workshop on Advanced Networking. Paul Love Chair, Topology Working Group Campus Workshop Houston 10-11 April 2002. Outline. Internet2 Engineering Objectives Hopes for & Threats to End-to-End Performance A few words on Abilene. Engineering Objectives of Internet2.

twyla
Télécharger la présentation

Campus Focused Workshop on Advanced Networking

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. Campus Focused Workshop on Advanced Networking Paul Love Chair, Topology Working Group Campus Workshop Houston 10-11 April 2002

  2. Outline • Internet2 Engineering Objectives • Hopes for & Threats to End-to-End Performance • A few words on Abilene

  3. Engineering Objectives of Internet2 • Provide our members with superlative networking • Performance • Functionality • Understanding • Make superlative networking strategic to research & education

  4. End-to-End: Challenge, Aspirations & Threats • Support services of advanced networks E2E (eyeball2eyeball) • Performance • Current target: 80Mb/s across the country • Multiplies where possible • Functions • Multicast • IPv6 • Quality of Service • Measurement • Security

  5. What are our Aspirations? • Switched 100BaseT + well-provisioned Internet2 networking @ 80 Mb/s (for now) • But user expectations and experiences vary widely • Don’t take the easy way out • Boost expectations & experiences - raise the bar • Raise the bar again – work hard to stay out there

  6. Threats • Distance BW = C x packet-size / ( delay x sqrt(packet-loss ))(Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, CCR, July 1997) • Fiber: dirty connections, bad light/connectors • Switches: full/half duplex & 10/100 mismatches, head of line blocking • Routing: Asymmetric, increased distance • Provisioning: a “straw” somewhere • Host: OS & TCP stack, H/W, Apps

  7. Abilene: Current Core

  8. Abilene Network Map

  9. 09 January 2002 Sacramento Washington Los Angeles Abilene International Peering STAR TAP/Star Light APAN/TransPAC, Ca*net3, CERN, CERnet, FASTnet, GEMnet, IUCC, KOREN/KREONET2, NORDUnet, RNP2, SURFnet, SingAREN, TAnet2 Pacific Wave AARNET, APAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, TANET2 NYCM BELNET, CA*net3, GEANT*, HEANET, JANET, NORDUnet SNVA GEMNET, SINET, SingAREN, WIDE LOSA UNINET OC3-OC12 San Diego (CALREN2) CUDI AMPATH REUNA, RNP2 RETINA (ANSP) El Paso (UACJ-UT El Paso) CUDI * ARNES, CARNET, CESnet, DFN, GRNET, RENATER, RESTENA, SWITCH, HUNGARNET, GARR-B, POL-34, RCCN, RedIRIS

  10. Abilene: 10Gb/s Upgrade

  11. Raw HDTV/IP testing • Packetized raw HDTV (1.5 Gbps) • ISIe, Tektronix, & UW project/DARPA support • Connectivity and testing support • P/NW & MAX Gigapops, Abilene and DARPA Supernet, Level(3) • SC2001 public demo • November, 2001 • SEA -> DEN via L(3) OC-48c SONET

  12. Raw HDTV/IP Demo • DARPA PIs Meeting: SEA->DC area 1/6/02 • 18 hrs of continuous, single-stream raw HD/IP • UDP jumbo frames: 4444 B packet size • Application level measurement • 3 billion packets transmitted • 0 packets lost, 15 resequencing episodes • e2e network performance • Loss: <8x10 -10 (90% confidence level) • Reordering: 5x10 –9 • Transcontinental 1-Gbps TCP (std 1.5 kB MTU) requires loss at the level of 3x10 –8 or lower

  13. Where things are at Present • Infrastructure of large capacity • Besides the HDTV/IP demos we have examples of 240Mb/s flows • But flows aren’t predictable – even 40Mb/s • People don’t know what they should expect

  14. Why Care? • Faculty needs keep advancing: • Effective access to remote facility: quickly move large datasets. PPDG: 400 Mb/s to CERN by 2003 • Interactive access: video or control or VoIPVery low loss/jitter • We (in several senses) need to deliver • Low aspirations are dangerous to us, to our goals

  15. Baseline BW Requirements for the US-CERN Transatlantic Link With thanks to Harvey B Newman, CIT

  16. www.internet2.edu

More Related