1. The Evolution of Internet2: 1996-2010 Douglas Van Houweling CEO, Internet2 May 2010 TERENA

2. 1996: The Internet2 “Project” 34 research university CIOs Commit $25,000 annual membership, $1M annual institutional investment Required to fill the vacuum left when NSFNet project terminated A project of EDUCOM Used the National Science Foundation vBNS for connectivity

3. 1997: The University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development Home to the Internet2 project Approximately 100 members Corporations and laboratories added NSF High Performance Connections Program Quality of Service -- QBone International collaboration Applications support

4. I2 Interconnect Cloud GigaPoP One GigaPoP Four GigaPoP Two GigaPoP Three “Gigabit capacity point of presence” an aggregation point for regional connectivity Internet2 Network Architecture

5. I2 Interconnect Cloud GigaPoPs, cont. GigaPoP One University A University BUniversity C Regional Network Commodity Internet Connections

6. 1998: Abilene April White House announcement with VP Gore Partnership with Qwest, Nortel & Cisco 2.5 Gb national reach Connects regional networks and universities NSF High Performance Connections Program

7. 1999: Middleware, Network Performance & Growth Middleware Early Harvest workshop Trusted multi-institutional authentication End-to-end performance initiative 24 International MOUs 249 Members

8. 2000-1: Beyond the University Sponsored Network Access Schools and small colleges Libraries Museums and concert halls The Quilt Arts & Humanities Initiative Health Sciences Initiative National Laboratories

9. 2002-7 Optical Networking FiberCo National LambdaRail Abilene -> 10 Gb Hybrid Optical and Packet Infrastructure (HOPI) Initiative The New Internet2 Network ESNet Partnership

10. 2002-9 Middleware Invention -> Deployment Middleware Workshops OpenSAML Shibboleth InCommon Federation Signet Privilege Management Grouper Group Management InCommon Steering Committee

11. 2006-8 Reformed Governance, Membership, and Strategy Community divided between Internet2 and National LambdaRail Merger unsuccessful Internet2 response Include regional network members Democratize and expand governance structure Community-based strategic plan

12. 2009-10 New National Focus The FCC National Broadband Plan “Anchor institution” networking market failure Build on higher ed networking experience The Department of Commerce Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Regional network projects Internet2/NLR/Northern Tier US UCAN Proposal

13. What Have We Learned? Stay at the leading edge Late to optical networking Build trust A consortium, not a corporation Focus on community needs What members can’t do for themselves Never stop changing

14. The Internet2 Research and Development Agenda for 2010: The Year of End to End Deployment Randall Frank Chief Technology Officer, Internet2 May 2010 TERENA

15. Being Honest With Ourselves Lots of great advanced technology out there deployed in pockets Great at custom demos that show off incredible bandwidth, high quality video, seemless authentication, … Not so great at making this all available to normal end users at their desks Users often need to become network experts to make all of this work

16. Example Technologies High performance networking (reserved bandwidth, predictable QoS) Performance monitoring Federated Authentication (InCommon)

17. What’s missing? Predictable deployment in a large scale end to end environment Technologies that work across the incredible diversity of networking infrastructures that are present within the R&E community Troubleshooting tools that enable end user to know what to do when things don’t work

18. 2010: Concerted Effort to Move from Demos to Production Previous model: we did our work in the network core, now if only campuses and regionals would do their part… New model: joint effort to make technology work end to end Work with campuses and regionals to develop plans for funding and deployment

19. High Performance Networking Goal: allow research users access to predictable high performance/high bandwidth flows Allow network be better handle needs of research users by capacity reservation

20. Some Experiments didn’t have right scaling/deployment characteristics Implemented separate circuit based network for reserved capacity Required separate interface(s) for downstream networks Didn’t integrate into financial or operational model, not financially viable given current funding models Didn’t deal with campus/regional issues Physical vs. virtualized services Required users to become network experts

21. Best effort IP IP MPLS w/ Res’v b/w Layer 2 frame Over MPLS

22. DCN Control Plane

23. Performance Measurement Perfsonar Widely adopted framework for exchange of network measurement data Joint development of ESNET, Internet2, GEANT2, RNP and others Goal: allows users world-wide to obtain data on end-end performance of a network path

24. Successes Gaining widespread acceptance across diverse networks and communities Extensive deployment within some networks (e.g., ESNET)

25. Limitations Not ubiquitous – users can’t rely on available of data collection points Implementation somewhat complex Lack of standard, low cost deployment devices Authorization environment still lags End user friendly analysis tools

26. 2010 Goals Low cost deployment kits Work with (virtual) communities to spur deployment Partner with other orgs that have specialized expertise (Gloriad, IRNC funded circuits) Work with vendors to build Perfsonar collection into network devices

27. Authentication Shiboleth: international R&E standard for federated authentication Each campus continues to use local authentication environment SAML based Allow inter-campus trust (within federation) of other campus authentication assertions InCommon: US Federation, 300+ campuses

28. US-wide certificate service Based heavily on TERENA program with COMODO (Thank you!) Campuses sign-up directly with InCommon for fixed annual fee Summer 2010 SSL certificates Fall 2010 user (signing and encryption) certificates Campuses choice in COMODO GUI (CCM) or API development

29. Goals for 2010 “productize” InCommon Federation in US Gain acceptance outside of R&E for R&E authentication US Federal government acceptance of InCommon for US Gov’t authentication of academic users Eduroam testing in US Expansion of services using Shib Today primarily web based authentication Deployment within other API services (e.g., Perfsonar)

30. Thank You