Dynamically provisioned networks as a substrate for science
1 / 12

Dynamically Provisioned Networks as a Substrate for Science - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Dynamically Provisioned Networks as a Substrate for Science. David Foster CERN. Objectives. T o explain in a high-level way why dynamic circuits are needed to serve demanding scientific users.

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 'Dynamically Provisioned Networks as a Substrate for Science' - lalo

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


  • To explain in a high-level way why dynamic circuits are needed to serve demanding scientific users.

  • To put the activities into an overall context of global research networking and show the future directions.

David Foster, CERN


  • Science projects are global enterprises

    • Megascience: LHC, ITER, LoFAR, JIVE, SKA …….

    • ESFRI projects funded under FP7:

      • http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=ri_projects_fp7

    • Increasing coordination on an increasingly global scale.

  • Computing for science is increasingly distributed

    • Clouds and Grids

  • People are mobile but lifestyle choice is important

    • Work anywhere, anytime.

    • “Think Globally but act Locally”

  • Open access to information is empowering

    • “Bring Science to the Scientists” - Bring the best minds to the problem.

David Foster, CERN


  • As perceived by the user community, networks are a victim of their own success

    • Expected to be transparent. “Networking is not a problem”

    • Assumed to be infinite and free (or nearly so).

  • Data volumes are increasing

    • LHC creates 6-7 PB raw data per year , all 4 experiments together.

    • CERN generates in total 15 PB of data per year, all 4 experiments together.

    • The raw data, 6-7PB/year, is distributed and there are more than 120PB/year of data products that are created and stored world-wide.

    • Other science project collaborations will generate equivalent or more data.

David Foster, CERN

Characterization of the user marketplace
Characterization of the User Marketplace

Cees de Laat


David Foster, CERN

Issues with d emanding u sers
Issues With Demanding Users

  • There are more and more of them.

  • The swamping of IP infrastructures with traffic from “well connected sites”

    • Occurs when the capability of a site are approaching that of the routed IP network.

    • Looks like a “denial of service” to the other users.

  • Solution 1: Build a bigger routed IP network.

    • A big investment to solve a problem for relatively few users.

    • All domains in any end-end path must do the same.

    • Only temporary, new users will come with bigger requirements.

  • Solution 2: Give the sites “what they need when they need it”.

    • May be considered as “Just in time provisioning”

    • Has led to the circuit approach.

David Foster, CERN

How circuits are used
How Circuits are Used

  • For efficiently using resources:

    • Long term or static circuits if the number of sites is small (~10)

    • Dynamic circuit provisioning for a community that is manageable and has continual needs (~100 sites)

    • Dynamic circuit provisioning for a large community that has occasional needs (periodic data transfer)

  • For traffic management:

    • Separates flows from the general IP infrastructure.

David Foster, CERN

Lhc case study
LHC: Case Study

  • LHC tier-1 sites are connected at 10G in a semi-mesh.

    • LHCOPN

  • Tier-2 sites (originally) needed 1Gbps to realistically be “part of” the grid community.

    • A dedicated circuit to India enabled and effectively empowered the TIFR.

  • Now, tier-2 sites are increasingly connected at 10G to be able to dynamically access all data products wherever they are (remember the 120PB/year?)

    • But connected to where? The association between Tier-1 and Tier-2 has “disappeared”.

    • All sites must be able to access all sites, so IP is the best fit!

      • Probably so at 1Gbps/site, but not at 10Gbps/site.

  • A new approach was needed

    • LHCONE: http://lhcone.net

David Foster, CERN

What is lhcone
What is LHCONE?

  • A sociology

    • Has helped to raise awareness of end site needs.

    • T2’s in Europe are requesting increasing capacity from the NREN’s

  • A process

    • Transatlantic bandwidth review of all R&E circuits

    • Discussions on really how to make a cross domain network.

    • Process is perhaps more important than outcome in delivering collaboration and focus

      • as long as the outcome works!

  • An architecture

    • Use of open exchanges to empower networks and users

    • Use of software for managing network capacity through dynamic provisioning.

      • OpenFlowis the flavour of the month

  • A model

    • The internet-2 OS3E is an open exchange architecture to support all sciences. Experience with LHCONE will be important.

David Foster, CERN

Open exchanges
Open Exchanges

  • A growing consensus on the way forward

    • I2 members meeting discussion with Bill St Arnaud.

    • A paper in preparation on a “definition”

  • Why is there so much interest?

    • They promote customised bilateral relationships by the exchange point owner not interfering

      • “lightweight” rules for connecting, link policies controlled by the link owners.

    • They have no specific commercial allegiance

      • So-called “carrier-neutral”

    • Users of the exchange point (can be NREN’s or end users) like them because they remain in control and directly manage the relationships.

      • no third-party involvement

    • They provide the possibility to create diverse solutions by working with different partners.

      • risk management

    • They do not impose technical decisions, so everyone can go at their own speed.

      • Avoids “lowest common denominator” solutions

    • They allow for organic growth and new entrants are welcome both as exchange operators and connected parties

      • Avoids single point of failure in the system as a whole

    • Optical exchanges permit provisioning of circuits of different transport protocols to exchange traffic.

      • http://www.broadnets.org/2004/workshop-papers/Gridnets/DijkstraF.pdf

    • They allow for activities to follow means and ambition.

      • They can be “pay as you go” and not “subscription based”

David Foster, CERN

To be resolved
To Be Resolved

  • Costs incurred to connect to an open exchange.

    • Depends on the exchange operator and the “last mile” provider.

    • Will be born by the end-site connecting.

  • Costs incurred to interconnect open exchanges

    • Currently born by the exchange owners, but is this scalable?

    • Might be also the responsibility of the science community but they are classically not structured to fund central network resources.

      • Needs to be more awareness that networks are not free inside the science communities.

  • Management of multi-domain circuit based infrastructures

    • Is a hot topic and has been for some time.

      • Buzzword heaven: Oscars, ION, Dragon, DRAC, Federica, OpenFlow, DICE, NSI …

    • Many software solutions are used and under development.

      • But some are moving much faster than others. We need some consolidation.

    • Somecollaboration activities underway to develop domain interworking.

      • But we need a more open and inclusive process.

    • Operations and management processes are still to be agreed.

      • No real process addressing this at present.

David Foster, CERN


  • Science needs are increasing and diversifying rapidly

    • Big growth in large international projects in all areas needing global high bandwidth connectivity.

    • The pressure is to always seek Open, Neutral and Diverse solutions.

      • The best service at the best price.

  • Circuit based approaches are inevitable

    • They address the needs of the network providers to serve the high-end users with resource efficiency and manageability.

    • The downward pressure on bandwidth costs from commercial operators make them increasingly cost effective.

  • Open Exchanges are inevitable

    • Because of the compelling combination of sociological, business and technical rationale.

    • We are not a strict hierarchy of users, nren’s, operators at world or european level and perhaps becoming less so as time goes on.

David Foster, CERN