Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Engineering: Advanced Functionality A Multicast A IPv6 A QoS A Measurements A Support for End-to-End Performance
Citation preview
Internet2 Engineering Objectives
Provide our universities with superlative networking: Performance Functionality Understanding
Make superlative networking strategic for university research and education
Engineering:Advanced Functionality
Multicast
IPv6
QoS
Measurements
Support for End-to-End Performance
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
Internet2 Multicast Architecture
PIM-SparseMode multicast routing within an Autonomous System quite scalable notion of rendezvous points
MBGP between Autonomous Systems
MSDP Source Discovery
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 and Abilene both support IPv6
Abilene IPv6 with IPv6/IPv4 Four 'backbone' nodes: Cisco 7200
Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Denver, and Indianapolis Managed by the Abilene NOC
IPv6 WG: address allocation and engineering coordination
Education / Training Goals
IPv6 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.
Materials from this workshop will be available to enable gigaPoPs and others to use in their own workshops.
Explore IPv6 Motivation Why should our users, campus decision-
makers, and community generally care about IPv6? 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.
Engineering:End-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
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
Very recently hired / deployed staff Cheryl Munn-Fremon, initiative director Russ Hobby, chief technical architect George Brett, chief information architect
$1.5M budgeted by Internet2
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 PERF participants rewarding Enable initiation of tests by PERF participants
Teams of performance analysis specialists (PERF) Dissemination of best practices
Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative
Distributed measurement infrastructure
Teams of performance analysis specialists (PERF) 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 (PERF)
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
Anticipated Partners NLANR: DAST, MOAT, and NCNE Web100 Project Abilene partners Leading campuses and gigaPoPs Internet2 corporate members
Access to Key Resources Optical telescopes in Hawaii
CRAFT Project
PACI Supercomputer Facilities
CERN
