1. 1 Internet2 Spring Member Meeting General Session 4 May 2005 Tracy Futhey, Duke University Erv Blythe, Virginia Tech Greg Jackson, University of Chicago Doug Van Houweling, Internet2

2. 2 NLR Goals Create national network physical infrastructure Support multiple experimental and production networks at multiple layers Advance both networking research and next- generation network-enabled applications in science, engineering, medicine, and others Promote connectivity at all layers to facilitate new forms of peering relationships among high- performance research and education networks These goals overlap with Internet2 goals

3. 3 NLR Infrastructure Owned fiber (20 years) nationwide Layer 1: DWDM supporting up to ~40 10 Gbps lambdas Layer 2: Gigabit Ethernet Layer 3: IP Network Wavelengths to support additional Layer 2 and 3 experimental or production networks Possible additional experimental Layer 1 infrastructure As Layer 1 through Layer 3 transport becomes more dynamic and flexible, these services will overlap with Internet2’s

4. 4 Recent NLR Progress Phase 1 complete; Phase 2 committed Network Research Council established; Science Research Council being formed Internet2 & NLR research collaboration through Research Councils Cisco funding for network research Services supporting a wide range of research projects Teragrid, DOE, Optiputer, SC200x HOPI experimentation over NLR Already committed uses of 20% of total network capacity (i.e., wave segments)

5. 5 Phase 1 (complete)

6. 6 Phase 1 + Phase 2 (spring-fall ‘05)

7. 7 NLR/Internet2 Collaborative Efforts Fall ‘04 Internet2 meeting emphases Commitment to collaborate Goal that NG Abilene use NLR Research Council coordination Spring ‘05 - Established Groups A & B to identify commonalities/gaps and recommend rationalization of services/structures

8. 8 Group A/Group B Considerations Motivating factors Identify potential future areas of overlap Reduce confusion multiple service providers, users Address concerns of stakeholders fiscal commitments service differences Commitments Do no harm Act in the best interest of HE community as one community, not two separately

9. 9 Group A Scoping the Future Multi-Service Advanced Network Infrastructure for U.S. Higher Education

10. 10 Membership Erv Blythe (Virginia Tech) Javad Boroumand (Cisco) Steve Corbató (Internet2) Wendy Huntoon (Pittsburgh SC, chair) Ron Johnson (Washington) Michael Krugman (Boston University) Rick Summerhill (Internet2) Doug Van Houweling (Internet2)

11. 11 Charge Analyze NLR, Internet2, & RON service plans Identify technical and operational requirements and overlap Identify areas where current or planned infrastructure falls short of requirements Propose changes that would close the gap and enable convergence

12. 12 Vision Global network that might one day serve research and education while leveraging the importance of regional networks Evolving a pervasive communications fabric that fosters innovation and services Sharing and integrating resources, technology transfer and commercialization in research and education

13. 13 Needs of End-Users and Sites Needs of End-Users and Sites not tied to a specific backbone or network Group A focuses narrowly on Internet2 and NLR Needs of the R&E Community Wide range of services and facilities: commodity service, local & regional peering, nearby co- location, access to R&E backbones, access to on- demand switchable waves Regional aggregation points GigaPOPs or RONs currently provide a wide range of network services and capabilities not found on the backbones

14. 14 Network and Technical Environment Environment built to accommodate as many services and capabilities as possible Importance of a common interconnection and service development module Broad range of attributes critical to the new network environment

15. 15 Organizational Environment Common Services and Interconnection model Standardize service delivery and support mechanisms Financial Considerations Current and long-term issues associated with competing and complementary financial strategies among NLR, Internet2, and RONs

16. 16 Expected Services and Capabilities Current and Near Term Examples Core Waves - high reliability waves that support a range of applications Examples: IP Network or Grid Application Flexible Waves - less stringent reliability requirements, low cost, flexible duration Examples: Network Research, IP Network Overflow Long Term Perspective Fundamental shift in the way we think about and provision networks Need to move towards the notion of a “virtual network”

17. 17 Potential Services & Capabilities of Next Generation Network

18. 18 Group B

19. 19 Membership Javad Boroumand (Cisco) Bill Decker (Iowa) Dave Farber (Carnegie-Mellon) Tracy Futhey (Duke) Ron Hutchins (Georgia Tech) Greg Jackson (Chicago, chair) Ron Johnson (Washington) Larry Landweber (Wisconsin) Jack McCredie (Berkeley) Doug Van Houweling (Internet2) Tom West (National LambdaRail)

20. 20 Charge (parts 1&2) Identify and list principal networking and other services and activities within NLR, Internet2, and their associated regional optical networks (RONs) Without regard for where these activities and services are currently located, assess the necessary or desirable degree of overlap, adjacency, or distance among them from technical, operational, financial, or other relevant perspectives

21. 21 Charge (part 3) Propose one or more aggregation schemes that group the activities effectively Schemes may correspond to the current Internet2, NLR, and RONs, but this is neither a requirement nor a goal Each scheme should satisfy the diverse organizational requirements while minimizing overall complexity

22. 22 Issues Mission Organization Resources Coherence and comprehensibility Researcher relationships

23. 23 Questions (Mission) Should we own, operate, and control our own network infrastructure? How do we involve relevant constituencies in network design? How do we determine requirements for our services, and key tactical issues? What duplication is necessary to satisfy conflicting requirements?

24. 24 Questions (Status Quo) How can we more effectively communicate with our many constituencies and enable “one stop shopping” for users? What misperceptions can we fix without major organizational change?

25. 25 Questions (Future) Do we address resource shortages by augmenting resources, or reducing scope? Can we proceed without resolving I2/NLR/RON overlaps? How should who address these questions, and then implement change?

26. 26 Differentiating Dimensions Membership Governance Network Services Finances Partnerships Research Other Activities Culture

27. 27 Status Quo (per Group A)

28. 28 Allocation

29. 29 Procreation

30. 30 Integration

31. 31 Antelope Freeway, ½ Mile Report, ~early June recommendations, if consensus Board & Council discussions, ~summer joint? Implementation, ~fall

32. 32 Internet2 Focus Today & Tomorrow Maintain existing Abilene capability Design next generation network Start with conceptual clean slate Engage the membership Abilene TAC report HOPI Collaborate with NLR, RONs, and campus IT organizations

33. 33 Abilene’s Value to R&E Facility for research & education community to develop new and innovative applications Advanced services beyond commodity internet IPv6 Multicast Abilene Observatory Resiliency at layer 3, redundant paths 4½ 9’s production level Cost recovery model encouraging utilization and upgrades International R&E peerings, connectivity to major R&E exchange points

34. 34 NLR’s Value to R&E Major national investment in national facilities Built on major regional investment Renewed impetus in support of network research Owned fiber infrastructure enables… Development & deployment of new network architecture, allowing development of scalable response to community’s future needs Network research and special-purpose network capabilities that enable new forms of network research, support new scientific research applications

35. 35 The Bottom Line Both Internet2 and NLR have evolved to meet real present and future requirements of the research and education advanced networking community We must and will collaborate to respond to those requirements in an effective and organizationally efficient fashion

36. 36 ?