1 Distributed Monitoring CERNET's experience Xing Li 2004-07-03

1

Distributed Monitoring

CERNET's experience

Xing Li

2004-07-03

2

CERNET Transport Network

3

CERNET IP Backbone

4

CERNET Statistics

38 GigaPops distributed in 36 cities, covering all the provinces in Mai

nland China.

– 11 national Pops are connected via multiple 2.5Gbps DWDM links

– 27 provincial Pops are connected via multiple 155Mbps SDH links

1,500 education and research institutions connected

– 300 campus networks connect to their nearest Pops via 100Mbps-1Gbps li

nks.

– 15 million users

5

CERNET Distributed Measurement

Provide the high performance, reliable IP

backbone service

Survive from the network attack

Run based on self-funded model

Protect mission critical applications

produce research data

6

Comparison of Current Data and Tools

Netflow Owamp (One-Way Latency) Iperf Traceroute SNMP Interface Statistics Internet2 Detective Multicast Beacon NTP Stratum 2 Server Ping/Traceroute V6 Destination

7

Current Tools and Analysis Throughput

– SNMP interface

– passive monitoring

– httpd+wget

Delay and Loss– ICMP

Top 20– passive monitoring

Multicast– Beacon

8

Passive Monitoring

R2.112410

R20.16509

M2.1

s

M2.2

9

Performance

10

Loss vs. Delay

11

CERNET HTTP Performance

12

Top20 Histogram

13

Multicast Beacon Monitoring

14

Correlation Analysis

Delay Matrix

Loss Matrix

Combined Pop Monitoring

Committed bandwidth http performance

Top 20 Warning

15

CERNET Delay Matrix

16

CERNET Loss Matrix

17

Pop Monitoring

18

Committed bandwidth http performance

Global Internet

CERNET

Cx

20M

1G

19

Top20 Monitoring

20

Other Tools and Activities Iperf NTP DNS BGP tcping Out of Order Packet Video Conference CCERT

21

NTP

22

Address and Domains Report

23

IPv4/IPv6 BGP Analysis

24

tcping

25

Multicast Video Conference

26

CCERT

27

Comparison (1)

Netflow Owamp (One-Way Latency) Iperf Traceroute SNMP Interface Statistics Internet2 Detective Multicast Beacon NTP Stratum 2 Server Ping/Traceroute V6 Destination

28

Comparison (2) Collection Today:

– Iperf (Throughput)– OWAMP (1-Way Latency, Lo

ss)– SNMP Data– Anonymized Netflow Data– Per Sender, Per Receiver, Per

Node Pair– IPv4 and IPv6

Collection in the Future– NTP (Data)– Traceroute– BGP Data– First Mile Analysis

Correlation Today:– “Worst 10” Throughputs

– “Worst 10” Latencies Correlation in the Future:

– 99th Percentile Throughput over Time

– Throughput/Loss for all E2E paths using a specific link

– Commonalities among first mile analyzers

– Sum of Partial Paths vs. Whole Path

29

Comparison (3) Analysis Today:

– Throughput over Time

– Latency over Time

– Loss over Time

– Worrisome Tests? (Any bad apples in “Worst Ten”?)

– “Not the Network” (If “Worst Ten” is good enough)

Analysis in the Future:– Latency vs. Loss– How good is the network?– Do common first mile

problems exist?– Does a link have problems

that only manifest in the long-haul?

– Is the network delivering the performance required by a funded project?

30

Future Work Expend to the CERNET member universities IPv6 New Tools Data library International collaboration

– APAN

– Abilene Observatory