1 / 7

NASA Glenn to OARnet Connectivity

NASA Glenn to OARnet Connectivity. NASA GRC has multiple options available to provide OARnet (e.g. OHIOview) access: Existing 2 T1 circuits to Columbus (now) Via NISN provided Internet services (now) Via NISN provided Peering w/ OARnet @Chicago NAP

zelda
Download Presentation

NASA Glenn to OARnet Connectivity

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. NASA Glenn to OARnet Connectivity NASA GRC has multiple options available to provide OARnet (e.g. OHIOview) access: • Existing 2 T1 circuits to Columbus (now) • Via NISN provided Internet services (now) • Via NISN provided Peering w/ OARnet @Chicago NAP • Via DS3 circuit directly from GRC to Cleveland OARnet POP * NISN = NASA Integrated Services Network 6/23/99

  2. Option #1:Use Existing T1 circuits ( ~ 3 Mbps) to Columbus(Current) Cons: • Service will be redundant to GRC • Service Costs are High • $22,000 / yr. OARnet Fees • $900 Total Line Fees/month • Doesn’t meet bandwidth req.'s from Science Committee • Some Internet traffic from GRC uses this circuit. Ohioview competing for bandwidth. Pros: • Service exists today (e.g. nothing else is required to do this) • Provides Direct OARnet (e.g. Ohioview) connection

  3. Pros: Costs are already covered by existing budget Would not require any special configuration Available bandwidth is greater than current OARnet connection. Would be easily available to the entire Internet Cons: Competes with GRC Internet bandwidth Ohioview traffic would traverse OARnet Internet backbone connections No QoS (Quality of Service) capabilities possible (Standard Internet access) Latency unmanageable No Bandwidth Guarantee Path may be inordinately long There would be security issues for Internet based access to Ohioview Option # 2: Via NISN* provided Internet services (now) * NISN = NASA Integrated Services Network

  4. Pros: GRC NISN based Internet traffic would Not have to compete for bandwidth Costs could be minimal to establish Peering Current bandwidth req.'s could be meet GRC Internet traffic would NOT be impacted by Ohioview. Cons: OARnet Chicago NAP connection would have additional traffic from Ohioview Indirect route from GRC to OARnet (e.g. latency, QoS issues) NISN peering would raise issues pertaining to security NISN would have additional traffic on network from Ohioview usage as well as NAP link utilization. Option #3: Via NISN* provided Peering w/ OARnet @Chicago NAP * NISN = NASA Integrated Services Network

  5. Pros: Bandwidth req.'s for Ohioview would easily be met Bandwidth growth would not be a problem GRC would be better positioned to collaborate with: Cleveland Clinic Foundation Internet2 Activities OARnet & members directly Hybrid Satellite Networking Direct Local Connection to OARnet (e.g. Ohioview users) No impact to OARnet or NISN Internet Backbone connections Cons: Added cost for DS3 circuit (~$30 K/yr.) for GRC to CLV-POP Additional Hardware required for both GRC and CLV-POP facility. Possible Costs for facility access to CLV-POP Circuit would require time to be established (Ordering, installation, etc.) This option based on cooperative agreement to cost-share facility (Fed,State, OARnet, Consortium… etc) Option # 4: Via DS3 circuit directly from GRC to Cleveland OARnet POP

  6. Network Diagrams

  7. Simpler Network View

More Related