Monitoring the World’s Networks

SCIC Monitoring Group (R. Cottrell et al.)

Mapping the Digital Divide

Plots Courtesy the PingER ProjectData from http://internetworldstats.com

Digital Divide: North Vs. South East Vs. West

Work on the Digital Dividefrom Several Perspectives

Share Information: Monitoring, Tracking BW Progress; Dark Fiber Projects & Pricing Track Planning (focus on LHC) and Leading Edge Progress Model Cases: Poland, Slovakia, Czech Rep., Brazil, China … Encourage Access to Dark Fiber; Modern technology choices

Raise Awareness: Locally, Regionally & GloballyDigital Divide WorkshopsDiplomatic Events: WSIS, RSIS, Bilateral: US-South Asia, EU-Africa,…

Technical Help with Modernizing the Infrastructure: Provide Tools for Effective Use: Data Transport, Monitoring,

Remote Collaboration and e-Learning Design, Commissioning, Development India “Knowledge Network”, Brazil’s Nat’l and Int’l Networks

Encourage, and Work on Inter-Regional Projects GLORIAD, Russia-China-Korea-US-Europe Optical Ring Latin America: CHEPREO/WHREN (US-Brazil); RedCLARA Mediterranean: EUMEDConnect; Asia-Pacific: TEIN2; Asia: ORIENT

SCIC Monitoring WG PingER (Also IEPM-BW)

Measurements from 1995 OnReports link reliability & quality

Countries monitored Contain 98% of world pop. 99% of World’s Internet Users

930 remote nodes at 786 sites in 164 nations; 55 monitoring nodes; 169 nodes in 50 African countries

Strong Collaboration with ICTP Trieste and NUST/SEECS (Pakistan)

Excellent, Vital Work; Funding issue

Monitoring & Remote Nodes (10/2010)

Countries: N. America (3), Latin America (21), Europe (30), Balkans (10), Africa (50), Middle East (13), Central Asia (9), South Asia (8), East Asia

(4), SE Asia (10), Russia (1), China (1) and Oceania (4)

R. Cottrell

Number of Hosts Monitored By Region: 1998 - 2009

R. Cottrell

Africa

Latin America

Loss Quality Vs. Population in 2008 vs. 2001)

R. Cottrell

2001

In 2001, only ~20% of the world had an Acceptable or

Better Packet Loss Rate [49% unmeasured].

By 2008 this had improved to ~90%.

What matters as much now is throughput.

SCIC Monitoring WG – Throughput improvements 1998-2010

Mar ‘92

Top 4: Europe, N. America, E, Asia & Australasia,Behind Europe:5yrs: Russia, L, America, Mid East.8yrs: SE Asia13yrs: S. Asia, C. Asia18yrs: Africa

In 10 years: Russia and L. America should catch up with top 4.Africa falling further behind, factor 60 behind E. Asia

Derived TCP Throughput =1460Bytes*8bits/Byte/(RTT * sqrt(loss))Mathis et. al.

We have extended the measurements to cover more developing countries and to increase the number of hosts monitored in each developing country.

We have carefully evaluated the routes and minimum ping RTTs to verify that hosts are where they are identified to be in our database. As a result we have worked with contacts in relevant countries and sites to find alternatives, and about 20-30 hosts have been replaced by more appropriate hosts.

Since December of 2006, we have added a net of over 230 new remote hosts, and added 51 countries (Africa: BF, CD, CV, CI, DJ, GA, GM, GH, GW, LR, LY, MU, NA, SC, SL, SZ, TG, ZM; Balkans/S.E. Europe: BA, LV, MD; Central Asia: TM, Europe: AD, AT, BE, BG, CZ, FO, GI, LI, LU, SM, SE; Latin America: AN, BS, CO, CU, DO, NI; Middle East: AE, BH, OM, QA, SA; South East Asia: KH, LA, PH, TH; South Asia: AF, BT, MV).

While ping blocking is still a big problem as many hosts

start blocking over time, no countries were lost this year.

Accomplishments Since 2008

Normalized TCP Throughput Trends Seen from CERN 1998-2009

R. Cottrell

Little Improvement to Africa over the last eight years

Plans for New Sub-SaharanUndersea Cables to Europe and India by 2011

Seacom EASSy TEAMs WACS MaIN One GLO1 ACE$ 650M $ 265M $ 82M $ 2B ? $ 865 M $ 150 M ???

13.7 kkm 10 kkm 4.5 kkm 13 kkm 14 kkm 9.5 kkm 12 kkm

1.28 Tbps 1.4 Tbps 0.12 – 1.2 Tbps 3.84 Tbps 2.5 Tbps? 0.64 Tbps ???

June 2009 Q1/Q2 2010 Sept. 2009 2010 Q4 2010 Q2 2009 2011

Ambitious plans are once again underway to better-connect the African continent, both East & West

Potential increase in capacity compared to now is 1000X: to the multi-Terabit/s range.

Is there is a sustainable market ?Before the recession, outlook was

at least one of these would succeed this time

http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables

IEPM Measurements of Fiber Cuts in the Mediterranean

December 2008(Also January 2008)

From the ICFA SCIC 2009Monitoring Report

Three undersea cables cut: traffic greatly disturbed between Europe and Asia/Near

East zone France Telecom observed Dec. 19 that 3 major underwater cables were cut:

“Sea Me We 4” at 7:28am, “Sea Me We3” at 7:33am and FLAG at 8:06am. Causes of the cut, located in the Mediterranean between Sicily and Tunisia,

on sections linking Sicily to Egypt, remain unclear. Most traffic between Europe and Asia rerouted through the USA. Traffic from Europe to Near East & Asia interrupted to greater or lesser extent.First estimate of percentage of out-of-service capacity): Saudi Arabia: 55% out of service Djibouti: 71% out of service Egypt: 52% out of service UAE: 68% out of service India: 82% out of service Lebanon: 16% out of service Malaysia: 42% out of service Maldives: 100% out of service Pakistan: 51% out of service Qatar: 73% out of service Syria: 36% out of service Taiwan: 39% out of service Yemen: 38% out of service Zambia: 62% out of service

www.orange.com/en_EN/press/press_releases/att00006557/CP_cables_19dec08_EN.pdf

고에너지물리연구센터 CENTER FOR HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Cable Cuts on Dec. 19.

Partial Recovery by Dec. 23

PingER Measurementsof the Impact of the Cuts on Throughput

Vs. Time

1 3 5 7 9 11 1315 17 19

21 23 9 2727