1 / 73

Internet2 Engineering and Abilene Update

Internet2 Engineering and Abilene Update. Westnet Meetings :: Boulder Guy Almes <almes@internet2.edu>. 29 June 2001. Outline of Talk. Internet2 Engineering Objectives Abilene History and Status Engineering Update Multicast, IPv6, QoS Issues in End-to-End Performance.

merritt
Download Presentation

Internet2 Engineering and Abilene Update

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 Engineering and Abilene Update Westnet Meetings :: Boulder Guy Almes <almes@internet2.edu> 29 June 2001

  2. Outline of Talk • Internet2 Engineering Objectives • Abilene History and Status • Engineering Update • Multicast, IPv6, QoS • Issues in End-to-End Performance

  3. Internet2 Engineering Objectives • Provide our universities with superlative networking: • Performance • Functionality • Understanding • Make superlative networking strategic for university research and education

  4. The End to End Challenge • Support advanced networking end to end • Performance • 100 Mb/s across the country normative • several multiples possible in some cases • Functionality • Multicast • Quality of Service • IPv6 • Measurements

  5. Abilene Update

  6. Original Abilene Objectives -- 15-Apr-98 • Provide high-quality, widely available Interconnect among participating gigaPoPs/universities • Connect to Internet2 members via the vBNS and to other key research/ education sites via Internet2/NGI-class federal and non-US nets

  7. Abilene Objectives, cont. • [Support] advanced functionality • Maximize Robustness • Minimize Latency • Provide Capacity to Avoid Congestion

  8. Key Attributes • 12 Router Nodes • Cisco 12008 Routers • Qwest collocation • OC48 Interior Circuits connect them • Packet over Sonet in all cases • Access: 52 total • OC3, OC12, and some OC48 • via any Qwest Sonet PoPs (Access Nodes) • ATM and POS both supported

  9. Abilene Partners • Qwest: Sonet and Collocation • Nortel: OC192 Sonet ADMs • Cisco: 12008 Routers • Indiana University: NOC

  10. Abilene core Seattle New York Cleveland Indianapolis Sunnyvale Washington Denver Kansas City Los Angeles Atlanta Houston

  11. The Qwest plow laying: - two conduits - one with 96 fibers - one empty

  12. Abilene Router Nodes being assembled Summer 1998

  13. Qwest 'right of way' PoP

  14. 60 Hudson an early carrier hotel

  15. Abilene Connectionsby (roughly) summer 2001

  16. Current Status • About 50 Connections • Growing number of OC3-to-OC12 POS upgrades • e.g., NYSERnet Buffalo • but also NoX, Univ Pennsylvania, Florida • 185 Participants in 50 States and DC • Puerto Rico soon

  17. Sponsored Education Group Participants – Other Possible

  18. Increasing Routing Complexity • Abilene International Transit Network • with CA*net3 and StarTap • Abilene policy on Federal Labs • differentiate Federal Labs from BB agencies

  19. Dest ination T ransit Pe ering Regular Participant Corporate Participant Federal Lab/BB Abilene ITN Peer Non-AITN Peer Federal Network Regular Participant Y Y Y Y Y Y Corporate Participant Y N Y Y Y Y Federal Lab/BB Y Y N Y Y N Source Abilene ITN Peer Y Y Y Y N N Non-AITN Peer Y Y Y N N N Federal Network Y Y N N N N Abilene Traffic Matrix

  20. OC12 OC3-12 International Peering Seattle CA*net3, (AARnet) STAR TAP APAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, IUCC, RENATER, REUNA, SURFnet, SINET, TAnet2 CERnet, (HARnet) New York DANTE*, JANET, NORDUnet, SURFnet CA*net3 Sunnyvale (SINET) Los Angeles SingAREN, SINET San Diego CUDI Miami (REUNA, RNP2, RETINA) El Paso (CUDI)

  21. Early NoF Planning • Commitment to ongoing needs of the Internet2 infrastructure beyond 2003 • Leverage growing DWDM/fiber provisioning with many 10-Gb/s ls • Needs: • Leverage Backbone/GigaPoP/Campus structure • Serious attention to international/federal peering • Current advanced services now normative

  22. The Houston Flood • Tropical storm Allison hit Houston hard • 26 inches in 24 hours • Abilene was effected by this • Houston Router Node went down Saturday morning • No news until mid-day Monday • "Technicians could not access this facility until late this afternoon when it was determined that the Abilene equipment there had been damaged beyond repair."

  23. The Houston Flood, cont. • Then (!), on Tuesday morning, it came up • First, just a few circuits • Operational for most Texas/Louisiana connectors • Last circuit came up Thursday • Networking, like baseball, is a "game of inches"

  24. Advanced Functionality • Multicast • IPv6 • QoS

  25. Internet2 Multicast • Multicast Working Group • Kevin Almeroth, Univ California Santa Barbara, chair • Encouraging more pervasive high-quality deployment of native IP multicast throughout the Internet2 infrastructure • Fighting fires • Keeping an eye on SSM • Clarifying the application story

  26. Internet2 Multicast Architecture • PIM-SparseMode • multicast routing within an Autonomous System • quite scalable • notion of rendezvous points • MBGP • between Autonomous Systems • MSDP • Source Discovery

  27. Longer-term WG Issues • Scalability (what happens if it does catch on?) • Exploring the role of Source-Specific Multicast

  28. Could SSM be Enough? • 'Classic' Multicast • Group <g> has global significance • A user creates, joins, sends to g • Others can join, then send to and/or listen to g • MBGP, PIM-SM, MSDP triad • Source Specific Multicast • Group <g> has local significance • A user 's' creates, sends to <s,g> • Others can subscribe to, then list to <s,g> • No need for MSDP (or allocation of <g> values)

  29. Implications of SSM • Simplify Multicast Routing / Addressing • No need for global class-D address allocation • No need for source discovery • Complicates 'few-to-few' applications • Define all the members of the application-level group • Both a burden and an opportunity • Allows better Security, Scalability • Requires new version of IGMP

  30. Multicast Summary • Full functionality supported now • Deployment steadily increasing • Some international peering, e.g., CA*net3 • Performance excellent • Scalability? • Applications?

  31. Internet2 IPv6 • IPv6 Working Group • Dale Finkelson, Univ Nebraska, chair • Build the Internet2 IPv6 infrastructure • Educate campus network engineers to support IPv6 • Explore the Motivation for IPv6 within the Internet2 community

  32. IPv6 Infrastructure • vBNS and Abilene both support IPv6 • Abilene IPv6 with IPv6/IPv4 • Four 'backbone' nodes: Cisco 7200 • Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Denver, and Indianapolis • Managed by the Abilene NOC • IPv6 WG: address allocation and engineering coordination

  33. Education / Training Goals • IPv6 hands-on workshop • Lincoln, Nebraska; 17 May 2001 • starting from scratch, build an IPv6 network, including routers, hosts, DNS tools and various transition tools, ending up with a functional IPv6 network fully interconnected to the global Internet. • Materials from this workshop will be available to enable gigaPoPs and others to use in their own workshops.

  34. Explore IPv6 Motivation • Why should our users, campus decision-makers, and community generally care about IPv6? • we like Steve Deering • IPv6 preserves the classic end-to-end transparency of the Internet architecture • improved support for mobility • key for IPsec • key for the scalability of the Internet • The answers must be pragmatic.

  35. Internet2 QoS • Quality of Service Working Group • Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2 staff, chair • QBone Premium Service • Scavenger Service • Architectural and ad-hoc projects

  36. QBone Premium Service • For a given bit/second rate, minimize: • Delay and variation in delay, and • Loss • And support • Interoperability of separately designed/managed IP networks (e.g., Abilene, gigaPoP, ESnet, campus) • Interoperability of different (compliant) equipment • This is hard and very important

  37. Abilene Premium Service • Goal • Make APS a reference implementation of QBone • Status • CAR policing + uncongested ABES • Seven participating connectors • Summer 2001: • Turn on PQ and stochastically detect illegal EF traffic via NetFlow monitoring • Fall 2001: • Engine-3-based real policing

  38. Scavenger Service • Suppose there were a less-than-best-efforts IP service within Internet2? • users can mark their packets LBE • best-efforts traffic generally routed before LBE traffic • what bottom-feeding applications would emerge? • much easier than Premium Service

  39. Other Abilene items • DDoS Detection Technique Development • collaboration of Asta Networks and the NOC • reflects open measurement/management stance • similar relation anticipated with Arbor Networks • High Performance Demos • Fall Member Meeting; Austin in October • SC'2001; Denver in November

  40. Issues inEnd-to-End Performance

  41. The Current Situation • Our universities have access to an infrastructure of considerable capacity • examples of 240 Mb/s flows • End-to-end performance varies widely • but 40 Mb/s flows not always predictable • users don't know what their expectations should be • Note the mismatch

  42. What are our Aspirations? • Candidate Answer #1:Switched 100BaseT + Well-provisioned Internet2 networking ® 80 Mb/s • But user expectations and experiences vary widely

  43. What are our Aspirations? • Candidate Answer #2:Lower user expectations and minimize complaining phone calls • There is a certain appeal I suppose...

  44. What are our Aspirations? • Candidate Answer #3:Raise expectations, encourage aggressive use, deliver on performance/functionality to key constituencies. • Not the easy way, but necessary for success

  45. Why should we Care? • "We" as the university community. • "We" as campus networking specialists. • "We" as networking professionals. • "We" as the (broad) Internet2 project. • Low aspirations are dangerous to us.

  46. End to End Performance Initiative • Goal: • To create a ubiquitous, predictable, and well-supported environment in which Internet2 campus network users have routinely successful experiences in their development and use of advanced Internet applications, by focusing resources and efforts on improving performance problem detection and resolution throughout campus, regional, and national networking infrastructures.

  47. Threats toEnd to End Performance • BW = C x packet-size / ( delay x sqrt(packet-loss ))(Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, CCR, July 1997) • Context: • Network capacity • Geographical distance • Aggressive application

More Related