Research networks vs networks for research needs for international testbeds
1 / 36

Research Networks vs Networks for Research Needs for International Testbeds - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Research Networks vs Networks for Research Needs for International Testbeds. Peter Kirstein University College London. Contents of Talk. Early national testbeds - and reactions to them Potted history until the 90s Current status - nationally & internationally

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Research Networks vs Networks for Research Needs for International Testbeds' - galvin

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Research networks vs networks for research needs for international testbeds

Research Networks vs Networks for ResearchNeeds for International Testbeds

Peter Kirstein

University College London


Contents of talk
Contents of Talk

  • Early national testbeds - and reactions to them

  • Potted history until the 90s

  • Current status - nationally & internationally

  • Strengthening the present initiatives

  • A proposed global project theme


The central theme
The Central Theme

  • Large-scale network Test-beds are essential to explore vital aspects of Internet technology and applications

  • Their main aim must be research networks

    • Their use to support other research areas, should be mainly to exercise and validate the research results

  • Most such current funding is national, now further progress needs global test-beds


Success of testbeds
Success of Testbeds

  • Today 30th anniversary first UCLA Arpanet node

    • Probably most influential testbed ever

    • Growth 4 to 100M nodes in thirty years

      • 80% pa growth rate exceeds the 16% telephone growth over a century, but beaten by mobile tel

  • Clearly this has politicians’ attention


Political requests
Political Requests

  • Vice-President Gore has claimed fatherhood of Internet

    • US NGI and other testbeds major US programme

  • Dutch (Surfnet) and Canadians (Canarie) have relatively large political programs

    • Which have mainly national testbeds

    • Include international connections


International testbed acceptance
International Testbed Acceptance

  • Does the Internet-2 Qbone Diagram mean that our battles are over

    • No we will analyse this further

    • International testbeds are still the exception

    • While many are partially convinced, much more is needed.


Doubts on international testbeds
Doubts on International Testbeds

  • In 1971, ICT was asked to give moral support to our proposal for an Arpanet link

    • We were told one would gain as much from a two week trip to Arpanet sites in the US

  • EU provided JAMES Net for research in ‘96/7

    • Most access was for occasional one-hour bursts

  • In 1997/98 a link between Canada and the European Research nets was provided

    • It was normally available only for one-off demos


Early european views on network testbeds
Early European Views on Network Testbeds

  • National networks were first to develop technology, later to use it.

    • SERCNET, CYCLADES good examples

  • International networks were purely for technology development

    • EIN, most SATNET sites had no real traffic

  • Euronet was exception, but PTTs killed it

    • Ebit, James had same fate in the 90s!


Testbeds as policy instruments
Testbeds as Policy Instruments

  • In 1978 I was requested to drop work on TCP/IP for UK Coloured Book

  • UCL ‘80s work was tolerated partly to keep TCP/IP and EARN out of the UK

  • 1997 JAMES had to be ATM, first TEN-155 plans were similar


Possible motivations for testbeds
Possible Motivations for Testbeds

  • Specific technology developments

    • Must be beyond specific component testing or activity that can be completely simulated

  • Proof-of-concept of whole systems

    • e.g. scaleability, manageability, security, ease of interfacing applications, relative advantage, interoperability, unambiguous specification

  • Pilot total systems pre-commercially

    • May include also customer interest, economics ease of integration with other technologies, migration strategies, encourage applications


History of testbeds the 70s
History of Testbeds - the ‘70s

  • Most were mainly technology testbeds

    • e.g PRNET, SATNET in the US; Cyclades, EIN in Europe

  • The technology was extended to networks to support research (NSRs)

    • e.g. Sercnet, UUNET, Euronet in Europe, UUNET

  • There were some proof of concept ones

    • In the US Arpanet, in the UK EPSS (BT) were real proof of concept systems

  • A few carrier data networks started

    • e.g. Transpac, Datapac, EDS, Telenet


History of testbeds the 80s
History of Testbeds - the ‘80s

  • In the 80s, the Carriers concentrated on data-nets providing good and global coverage

    • Most did not use Internet standards

    • They seldom developed testbeds

  • Technology testbeds including new transmission and application-level techniques

    • VSAT and small size earth-stations in networks

    • ISDN pilots and early systems access to networks

    • Electronic mail, directories, graphics over networks

    • LAN-WAN gateways

    • First Secure net technologies


Networks to support research 80s
Networks to Support Research - ‘80s

  • During the ‘80s, most countries built networks to support research


    • Need for stability discouraged experimentation

    • Emphasis on connecting users via LANs

    • First international nets - EARN, Internet, DECnet

  • Networks & services needed management

    • DNS, Routing tables, Directories, SNMP

    • Normally did not need separate networks


Networks in the 90s
Networks in the 90s

  • Explosive growth in technology

    • WAN speeds mainly due to fibre

    • Qualitative jump in access capability LAN, PSTN, Cable, ISDN, xDSL, wireless, power line carrier

    • Huge numbers of workstations due to cost and functionality of workstations, WWW applications

  • Resulted in large number of problems to be solved at all levels, in commercial arena

    • Technology, protocols, services, management


Us testbeds in early 90s
US Testbeds in Early ‘90s

  • DARPA concentrated on technology ones

    • Only multicast conferencing application on Dartnet

    • Limited applications on Gigabit - but built up carrier partnerships and national coverage by stealth

  • NSF really concentrated on Supercomputers, measurement and management of divestiture

  • ATDNET and VBNS became real testbeds -

    • VBNS moved to networks to support research

    • VBNS has limited international component


Testbeds in the 90s
Testbeds in the 90s

  • Both technology and application testbeds were clearly needed, first tried to combine

    • ACTS and Gigabit tried to push technology and applications. Seldom worked with applications

    • SuperJanet promised to provide research part, it could not provide it because of conferencing

  • Some provided related networks, with one emphasising technology, another applications

    • CA*Net, SURFNET, parts of DFN did well here


Other testbeds in early 90s
Other Testbeds in early ‘90s

  • Most of these testbeds were mainly national

    • US ones were thus, with only some lower speed VBNS international services for supercomputers

    • CA*net-3, Berkom, SURFNET have/had strong testbed components, most others are only networks to support research

  • Recently fibre is being installed in such large bundles, that there is spare capacity

    • These were first used in Gigabit and Berkom in 91; it continued with most current high-speed testbeds


Later 90s testbeds
Later 90s Testbeds

  • Some high capacity fibre networks have been possible at non-commercial tariffs because:

    • Availability of fibre not yet needed commercially

    • Most Carriers see that they will have to have Internet technology, but many do not know its capabilities at high speed and size

    • They do not want, or cannot yet, offer these services to all commercial customers

  • Outside the US these partnerships are usually national, involve only one carrier, and limited

    • JAMES and CANTAT-3 in ‘96 were exceptions


European national hosts
European National Hosts

  • In 1994, the ACTS programme planned to provide National Hosts (NHs)

  • NHs were to be connected together, and to provide more general facilities

    • National Networks to support research

    • To support EU researchers to collaborate

    • National Research Networks

    • Mobile telephone, satellite, etc

  • In practice only the first two existed

    • Costs limited their use by industrial partners


Us testbeds
US Testbeds

  • Internet-2 is planned to be an advanced testbed for networking and applications

    • There will be very broad connectivity for special applications

  • DARPA technology testbeds supplement it

    • with very high speeds, advanced technology, high reliability, active network elements, etc.

  • Most technology testbeds will be national, Internet-2 will have international links


Testbeds outside the us
Testbeds outside the US

  • Most of the testbeds are purely national

    • This is partly geographic, partly political, partly the very high local international tariffs

  • Some will connect to the US via STAR-TAP

  • In Europe there is enough concentration to discuss a regional equivalent to Internet 2

    • National issues may decide what form it should be

    • The Quantum project is the current interim


The quantum project
The Quantum Project

  • This is an interim three year project, partly funded by the European Union IST program

    • Mainly to provide stable links to National nets to support research at OC-3, and OC-12 by 2001

    • Has a number of planned working groups like those in Internet-2

    • Has a limited (a few Mbps) VPN capability - available for specific short experiments

    • Should support EU IST researchers also

    • Will have US, Japanese and East European links


National vs international testbeds
National vs International Testbeds

  • Pure technology testbeds can usually be national

    • Even here considerations from other countries may broaden both thinking and applicability

    • International involvement may speed up broad acceptance of the concepts

  • International testbeds are more costly and complex; benefits must be justified


Aspects of international testbeds
Aspects of International Testbeds

  • Size and speed - to allow exploration of scaling

  • Heterogeneity - to allow different features environments and concepts to be explored

  • Availability - to permit applications to be built with the stress of real use

  • Sensible duration - to justify the effort by all who must commit to its success

  • User Commitment and Need- to ensure that the testbed is really exercised

  • Usually Multi-Carrier- because of the user com-munities in the different countries


Is ten 155 such a testbed
Is TEN-155 such a testbed

  • TEN-155 has purchased bandwidth on a quasi-commercial basis

    • Cheaper than earlier, no comparison with Abilene

  • The need for stable services means real experimentation is very difficult

    • It is really meant for better standard services

    • It will try to provide advanced services, as long as they do not interfere with other service

  • In its present form it cannot be a real testbed


Internet 2 internationalisation
Internet-2 Internationalisation

  • Internet-2 has large support from Qwest, Nortel and Cisco.

    • It will be a high-capacity, application testbed

    • It will peer with many US networks

    • Via STAR-TAP/STAR-NODE will have several international connections

  • Has advanced programmes in QoS, IPv6, network storage, TV and Video, etc


Needs in a global testbed
Needs in a Global Testbed

  • Enough research bandwidth to allow both advanced services and experimentation

  • A variety of access technologies and probably backbone technologies

    • Pure advanced technology can be done nationally

    • Impacts of satellites (LEO and DBS), mobile, xDSL, IPv6, secure infrastructures, QoS all vital

  • Over-provisioning of bandwidth

    • Possible at some cost to availability


Current window of opportunity
Current Window of Opportunity

  • Over-provision of fibre

    • Temporary in Europe and internationally

  • Many national testbeds that could be added

  • Strong commercial interest in the questions that such a testbed could answer

  • Strong need for specific applications

    • e.g. HEP, earth observation, conferencing

  • Willingness by at least some large firms to participate as in Internet-2

  • Certainly EU Call which includes testbeds


Proposed project
Proposed Project

  • An international initiative - at least by end 2000

    • 15 countries in America, Asia, Australia and Europe

    • 10 terrestrial carriers participate,with six firms to provide switches, routers, Muxes, NOCs

    • 3 each of mobile, DBS, LEO and Cable operators

  • By the end of 2001, at least the following

    • OC-12 on major oceanic routes, OC-3 to national nets for experimentation

    • Able to fully participate in Internet-2 activities

    • Mobile terminals, UMTS, DBS facilities


Proposed target by end 2001
Proposed Target by End 2001

  • Testbed service allowing 20-person, high bandwidth secured multicast conference

    • Mobile at a few hundred Kbps in 4 countries

    • Terrestrial at 10-20 Mbps over normal LANs

    • xDSL over telephone and cable into a QoS VPN

    • Use IPv6, QoS, IPSEC, Mobile IP, rugged M/c

    • Watched by 400 in ten countries, some with poorer communications and limited audio via I/N


Potential problems
Potential Problems

  • Would need several carriers

    • Not clear who would agree to participate together

  • Regulations may forbid discrimination/cartel

    • Must be arranged that participation in a cost-shared project would not incur penalties

  • Carriers often want only short-term projects

    • Would have to give longer commitment, even if there are changes in organisational structure

  • Funders must be prepared to see even international bandwidth under-used



  • Now is time for a large-scale research testbed

    • Link in National technology & applications testbeds

  • It should be wider in concept than Internet-2

    • Including many maturing advanced technologies

    • Heterogeneity in infrastructure and suppliers good

  • Include academia, industry & government

    • Easing Regulatory constraints if necessary

    • Preferably partnership not formal tender


The future
The Future

  • Early indications from some possible industrial participants show strong interest

  • Let us try to bring in areas of the world currently left out

  • Let us start the new Millenium with making such a global projects a reality