5/17/2001NLANR & I2 Joint Techs Bandwidth ahoy! …NOT!! Ana Preston The University of Tennessee May 17, 2001

5/17/2001 NLANR & I2 Joint Techs

Bandwidth ahoy! …NOT!!

Ana PrestonThe University of Tennessee

May 17, 2001


At Univ. Tennessee Early days: tried blocking on well-

known Napster ports and well-known IP addresses

For dorm traffic: applied CAR per subnet: 20Mbps (before Resnet-DS-3)

Most efficient method: DoS attack on Napster ;-)


At Univ. Tennessee, cont. Homegrown flow-based graphs SNMP queries on all campus routers

Wed. Feb. 14, 2001 - Qwest-DS-3

Fri. March 2, 2001 - Qwest-DS-3

Fri. March 2, 2001 - Resnet-DS-3

Fri. April 27 - Qwest-DS-3

Fri. April 27 - ResNet-DS-3

Thurs, May 10, 2001 - Qwest-DS-3

Thurs., May 10, 2001 - ResNet-DS-3

Meanwhile, Internet2 DS-3, Feb. 14, 2001

Meanwhile, Internet2 DS-3, Frid. April 27, 2001

Meanwhile, Internet2 DS-3, Thurs. May 10, 2001


Univ. of Tennessee - Fri. March 2, 2001


Today: P2P is very much alive... How universities have responded:

Banning it (mainly b/c it clogs the network) “Passively” Monitoring (and keeping tabs on

top hogs…) Blocking, Rate Limiting, Fair Usage Policy

Implementations Educating (on copyright law and impact.) Not doing anything at all and waiting…


The challenges... Should you control p2p applications and if so, on

what basis? Is this the right question anymore? planning for constantly increasing bandwidth

demand without increasing funding. Bandwidth: for students (and staff and

faculty/reserarchers): How much? What is fair? How to implement?

P2P applications are changing our traditional paradigms.

[archives at http://listserv.utk.edu/archives/p2p.html]


Nothing new, yet... advent of P2P applications is challenging some of the

broader Internet architecture models

“Universities have been the first to face these challenges, and as a result, universities are increasingly looking [or could be looking] into new and innovative architecture and service models encompassing notions like settlement free exchange-point based peering, massive peering, GigaPOPs, dark fiber nets, neutral collocation facilities, self organizing nets, etc.” (from a post to the p2p list)


Mark your calendars Oct. 4-5, 2001, following the Fall Internet2 Member

meeting at Austin, TX (Univ. of Texas at Austin, Sept. 30 - Oct. 4, 2001).

The first R&E p2p workshop!


The p2p workshop! Our goal:

We will specifically explore the technical and future dimensions of the fast-growing P2P services spaces and the opportunities and challenges presented for universities.


What this will be about P2P application developers, users and us (??) in the

same room to share experiences and challenges. Exploration into how universities can integrate and

perhaps even innovate with this "revolution,” while providing vehicle (or models, ideas, and such) through which universities can benefit.

Advantages of P2P models for applications in research, learning and teaching.

What could there be for the R&E community for future opportunities?


A. How do these things work? In general, how are P2P applications designed and what

are the basic kinds of architectures/models that are used.

What are the issues and challenges that come up when creating P2P systems? Are there ways that standardized architectures can be promoted that allow for collaboration between universities and P2P application developers?

Network engineers have vested interest in understanding how P2P technology operates so that they can make networks operate efficiently, perhaps in spite of P2P applications being used.


B. P2P in the real world How are the most innovative models are being used "in

the real world"? What are the policy and implications when these

applications are used in real case scenarios. Research and science (e.g., genome@home, climate simulation,

economics, medicine) Academia, education and learning - K-20 and more: educational

p2p applications --LEARNSTER (see www.educommons.org)- what are the advantages of P2P systems for learning and educating.

Enterprise: Groove, Porivo, OpenCola, Parabon, etc. Other...


C. Approaching use and innotivation

To provide a survey of successful methods that are being used at universities

The issues surrounding the ever-growing demand for bandwidth

What does it take to maximize both commodity and Internet2 bandwidth?

With P2P, where will this innovation take us and how do we take advantage of the possibilities; how do we get people to think of P2P in innovative ways? who should we be getting interested in that innovation?


Program Committee Chairs:Ana Preston, University of TN Linda Roos, OARnet

George Brett, NLANR-DAST Perry Brunelli, Univ. Wisconsin-Madison James Deaton, ONEnet David Futey, Kent State University Doyle Friskney, Univ. Kentucky William Green, Univ. Texa Chris Rapier, Pittsburg Supercomputing Center/NLANR Joe St Sauver, Univ. Oregon Jerry Sobieski, Univ. Maryland Steve Wallace, Indiana Univ. David Wiley, Utah State Univ


Interested in more? Thurs. in-depth session 1:30 p.m

Case studies P2P apps. on I1 and I2 (and implications, e.g. SEGP and p2p) Feedback on p2p FAQ and workshop

P2P list:listserv.utk.edu/p2p/archives.html

Email me at [email protected] or Linda Roos at [email protected]

Stay posted for our announcement

Thank you!

Documents

5/17/2001NLANR & I2 Joint Techs Bandwidth ahoy! …NOT!! Ana Preston The University of Tennessee May 17, 2001