Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Internet2 Engineering and University Researchers
NacogdochesGuy Almes <[email protected]>
30 March 2001
Outline of Talk
Internet2 Engineering / Infrastructure
Advanced Functionality: Multicast as a normative service
IPv6, QoS
Issues in End-to-End Performance
Practical support for university researchers
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
Abilene coreNovember 2000
Seattle
Kansas City
Denver
Cleveland
New York
Atlanta
Houston
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Indianapolis
Washington
Abilene Connectionsby (roughly) Mar-2001
International Peering
STAR TAPAPAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, IUCC, RENATER, REUNA, SURFnet, 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
Advanced Functionality
Multicast
IPv6
QoS
Internet2 Multicast
Multicast Working Group Kevin Almeroth, Univ California Santa Barbara, chair
Encouraging more pervasive high-quality deployment of native IP multicast throughout the Internet2 infrastructure
Fighting fires Keeping an eye on SSM Clarifying the application story
'Classic Model'Native IP Multicast
Steve Deering's Stanford PhD thesis Notion of a multicast group <g>
Denoted as a class-D IP address
User can create and join
Any member of the group can send
All members of the group receive
These 'g' values have global significance Allocation and Routing are hard
Internet2 Multicast Architecture
PIM-SparseMode multicast routing within an Autonomous System
quite scalable
notion of rendezvous points
MBGP between Autonomous Systems
MSDP Source Discovery
Issues on the Campus
IGMP support join, leave by users
host communicates with its first-hop router
PIM-SM, MSDP, etc. becoming well understood
Optimization of switched ethernets
Short-term WG Issues
Encouraging deployment and applications
Pressing router/software vendors for specific needed improvements
Improving the set of tools for network management, e.g., Matt Davy of Indiana Univ
Fighting Fires, e.g., recent MSDP storms
Multicast Applications
'few to few' applications vic/vat: Video/Audio-conferencing
Access Grid
Streaming media ResearchTV at Univ Washington
Concerts, music via Univ Oregon
'one to many' file transfers digital fountain etc
Longer-term WG Issues
Scalability (what happens if it does catch on?)
Exploring the role of Source-Specific Multicast
Could SSM be Enough?
'Classic' Multicast Group <g> has global significance
A user creates, joins, sends to g
Others can join, then send to and/or listen to g
MBGP, PIM-SM, MSDP triad
Source Specific Multicast Group <g> has local significance
A user 's' creates, sends to <s,g>
Others can subscribe to, then list to <s,g>
No need for MSDP (or allocation of <g> values)
Implications of SSM
Simplify Multicast Routing / Addressing No need for global class-D address allocation
No need for source discovery
Complicates 'few-to-few' applications Define all the members of the application-level group
Both a burden and an opportunity
Allows better Security, Scalability
Requires new version of IGMP
Multicast Summary
Full functionality supported now Deployment steadily increasing Some international peering, e.g., CA*net3 Performance excellent
Scalability? Applications?
Internet2 IPv6
IPv6 Working Group Dale Finkelson, Univ Nebraska, chair
Build the Internet2 IPv6 infrastructure Educate campus network engineers to
support IPv6 Explore the Motivation for IPv6 within
the Internet2 community
IPv6 Infrastructure
vBNS IPv6 with IPv6/ATM Abilene IPv6 with IPv6/IPv4
Four 'backbone' nodes: Cisco 7200 Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Denver, and Indianapolis
Managed by the Abilene NOC
IPv6 address allocation and engineering coordination
Education / Training Goals
IPv6-only hands-on workshop Lincoln, Nebraska; 17 May 2001
starting from scratch, build an IPv6 network, including routers, hosts, DNS tools and various transition tools, ending up with a functional IPv6 network fully interconnected to the global Internet.
Other dissemination ideas
Explore IPv6 Motivation
Why should our users, campus decision-makers, and community generally care about IPv6? we like Steve Deering
IPv6 preserves the classic end-to-end transparency of the Internet architecture
improved support for mobility
key for IPsec
key for the scalability of the Internet
The answers must be pragmatic.
Internet2 QoS
Quality of Service Working Group Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2 staff, chair
QBone Premium Service Scavenger Service Architectural and ad-hoc projects
QBone Premium Service
For a given bit/second rate, minimize: Delay and variation in delay, and
Loss
And support Interoperability of separately designed/managed IP
networks (e.g., Abilene, gigaPoP, ESnet, campus)
Interoperability of different (compliant) equipment
This is hard and very important
Scavenger Service
Suppose there were a less-than-best-efforts IP service within Internet2? users can mark their packets LBE
best-efforts traffic generally routed before LBE traffic
what bottom-feeding applications would emerge?
much easier than Premium Service
Architecture andAd-hoc Projects
Architecture Critique Premium Service etc as other ideas emerge
Study economic issues associated with QoS
Ad-hoc Projects (Purely) pragmatic applications of QoS techniques
to important yet congested international links
Test efficacy of Premium Service for proposed advanced applications
Issues inEnd-to-End Performance
The Current Situation
Our universities have access to an 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
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?
"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.
End to End Performance Initiative
Goal: To create a ubiquitous, predictable, and well-
supported environment in which Internet2 campus network users have routinely successful experiences in their development and use of advanced Internet applications, by focusing resources and efforts on improving performance problem detection and resolution throughout campus, regional, and national networking infrastructures.
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
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
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, or that 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
Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative
Distributed measurement infrastructure
Teams of performance analysis specialists (PERTs)
Dissemination of best practices
Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative
Distributed measurement infrastructure Enable rapid effective understanding of why an
instance of end-to-end performance is limited
Make the work of PERT members rewarding
Enable initiation of tests by PERT members
Teams of performance analysis specialists (PERTs)
Dissemination of best practices
Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative
Distributed measurement infrastructure
Teams of performance analysis specialists (PERTs) members at campuses, gigaPoPs, backbones
socially and technically coordinated
committed to effecting radical change
Dissemination of best practices
Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative
Distributed measurement infrastructure
Teams of performance analysis specialists (PERTs)
Dissemination of best practices Identify key techniques, tools, and 'best practices'
Make them common
Work toward widespread / routine excellent user experiences
Improve the reputation / status of network engineers
Defining End-to-End Success Metrics
Identify core applications / services high-performance TCP
VoIP / videoconferencing
pervasive native IP multicast
Scope How pervasive is it supported across the campus?
Timeliness When are these metrics achieved?
Anticipated Partners
NLANR: DAST, MOAT, and NCNE
Web100 Project Abilene partners Leading campuses and gigaPoPs Internet2 corporate members
Initiative Phases
1st Gear Preparation, planning, early experiments
2nd Gear: Early Adopters Phase Partner with selected 'early adopters'
Develop PERTs, Measurement Infrastructure, etc.
Build tools, resources, and best practices
3rd Gear: Dissemination Increasingly pervasive PERTs, infrastructure
Initiative Timeline
Ongoing search for an Initiative Director Planning Meeting: 9-Jan-01 Design Team Report: 28-Feb-01 Unveil Report: Spring Member Meeting Issue Call for Partners: May-01
Internet2 Measurements
Measurement Working Group Matt Zekauskas, Internet2 Staff
Define architecture: Usage
Active Measurements of Performance
Passive Measurements
Uniform Access to Results Contributing to Measurement
Infrastructure for the E2EPerf
Applications for Measurements
End-to-end Performance Debugging Verification of QoS Performance
Characteristics Support for Operations Forward engineering of new
infrastructure Supporting research, e.g., by university
computer scientists
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?
Access to Key Resources
Optical telescopes in Hawaii
CRAFT Project
PACI Supercomputer Facilities
CERN
Working Groups as Opportunities
We intend the WGs to be effective as: means for interested engineers to 'sink their teeth
into' hard Internet2 engineering problems
means for disseminating best practices etc to the Internet2 membership
New Engineering Area of Internet2 web site due up by 14-Feb-01
Internet2 and Stephen F Austin
Can we defeat distance as a barrier to: human collaboration?
effective access to key instruments / data sources?
For very large research universities, this is somewhat important, but it is key for smaller ones!
Applications Communities
General notion: distributed sets of researchers who collaborate at a distance High Energy Physics (CERN, MIT, Caltech)
Space Physics & Aeronomy Research Collaboratory
Geospatial Information Systems community
These groups explore why advanced Internet2 infrastructure is important
