The Campus as key to Internet2 Engineering Atlanta Guy Almes 30 May 2000

The Campus as key to Internet2 Engineering

AtlantaGuy Almes <almes@internet2.edu>

30 May 2000

Outline of Talk

Internet2 Engineering Objectives

The Logic of End-to-End Performance Our Aspirations

Threats to these Aspirations

Promising Approaches to Success

The Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative

Internet2 Engineering Objectives

Provide our universities with superlative networking: Performance

Functionality

Understanding

Make superlative networking strategic for university research and education

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

What are our Aspirations?

Candidate Answer #1:Switched 100BaseT + Well-provisioned Internet2 networking ® 80 Mb/s

But user expectations and experiences vary widely

What are our Aspirations?

Candidate Answer #2:Lower user expectations and minimize complaining phone calls

There is a certain appeal I suppose...

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

Why should we Care?

Advanced faculty needs: Effective access to remote facility: quickly move

large datasets. PPDG: 400 Mb/s to CERN by 2003.

Interactive access: video or control or VoIP.Very low loss/jitter.

We (in several senses) need to deliver the goods.

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.

Abilene coreNovember 2000

Seattle

Kansas City

Denver

Cleveland

New York

Atlanta

Houston

Sacramento

Los Angeles

Indianapolis

Washington

Abilene Connectionsby (roughly) summer 2001

International Peering

STAR TAPAPAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, IUCC, NORDUnet, RENATER, REUNA, SURFnet, SingAREN, SINET, TAnet2 CERnet, (HARnet)

OC12 New YorkDANTE*, JANET, NORDUnet, SURFnet CA*net3

SeattleCA*net3, (AARnet)

Sunnyvale(SINET)

Los AngelesSingAREN, SINET

Miami(REUNA, RNP2, RETINA)

OC3-12El Paso(CUDI)

San DiegoCUDI

The Current Situation

We have a combined Internet2 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

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

BW µ C / delay

delay due to distance

original raw bandwidth

BW µ C / delay

delay due to distance

more raw bandwidth

Threats toEnd to End Performance

Network Path local / department / campus gigaPoP / backbone / exchange points

Host problems OS / TCP Hardware: NIC, CPU, memory, bus Application

Threats toEnd to End Performance

Fiber problems dirty fiber

dim lighting

'not quite right' connectors

Threats toEnd to End Performance

Fiber problems Switches

horsepower

full vs half-duplex

auto-sense 10/100

head-of-line blocking

Threats toEnd to End Performance

Fiber problems Switches Inadvertently stingy provisioning

mostly communication

happens also in international settings

Threats toEnd to End Performance

Fiber problems Switches Inadvertently stingy provisioning Wrong Routing

asymmetric

best use of Internet2

distance

Threats toEnd to End Performance

Fiber problems Switches Inadvertently stingy provisioning Wrong Routing Host issues

NIC

OS / TCP stack

CPU

Perverse Result

'Users' think the network is congested or that the Internet2 infrastructure cannot help them

'Planners' think the network is underutilized, no further investment needed, and users don't need high performance networks

Promising Approaches

Work with key motivated users 'Shining a flashlight' on the problem Measurements Divide-and-Conquer Understanding Application Behavior Getting it right the first time

Active Measurements within Abilene

Surveyors with:Active delay/loss measurementsAd hoc throughput tests

Application to Performance Debugging

Application to Performance Debugging

Divide and Conquer

Systematically identify/isolate the network segment at fault

Can we make this systematic and (eventually) automated?

End to EndAdvanced Functionality

Multicast

IPv6

QoS

Measurements

Creating Internet2 Value

Build the infrastructure together Make end-to-end performance and

advanced functionality routine Identify and connect valuable resources

for our faculty and students

Have fun