GOLE and Exchange Architectures John Silvester Professor of Electrical Engineering, USC Board Member, CENIC PI, TransLight/PacificWave (NSF-OCI-IRNC) Presentation at Chinese American Networking Symposium, Indianapolis, October 21, 2008

2 International Connectivity International Connectivity Visualization courtesy of Bob Patterson, NCSA. and Exchanges CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

US Exchanges Points and Goles CANS 2008, Indianapolis, Pacific WaveAtlantic Wave

CANS 2008, Indianapolis, Pacific Wave Pacific Wave is an exchange supporting the interconnection of research and education networks on the West Coast of the US. (Many International links from Asia and Oceania land in the US on the West Coast - submarine cable landings). Allows US R&E networks to peer with non-US networks over international links; allows US R&E networks to peer with each other in a convenient and cost-effective way; also allows non-US networks to peer with each other in a neutral way. Pacific Wave is a “distributed” exchange allowing participants at any of its connection points (LA, Sunnyvale, Seattle, and extension to Tijuana) to interconnect in a transparent way. (and also to StarLight in Chicago over the TransLight link. IPv4, IPv6, Multicast, regular and jumbo frames all supported Pacific Wave supports Layer 3 peering over a layer 2 infrastructure (VLANS); layer 2 peering over a layer 2 interconnect (private VLANS); layer 1.5 interconnect (SONET/SDH, Internet2/DCN); and even direct layer 1 interconnect.

Networks at Pacific Wave CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

6 NSF IRNC Project: TransLight/PacificWave Primary Objectives are: 1.Assist in the termination (equipment, backhaul) of the Australian Research Network links from Sydney to the US West Coast (pays for the US portion of the links) 2.Provide funding to allow the links to stop off in Hawaii (on Oahu and the Big Island) 3.Provide funding to upgrade connectivity to the (international) observatories on Mauna Kea 4.Provide partial support for the operation of Pacific Wave exchange facility 5.Provide funding for upgrading the Pacific Wave Exchange to enable newer technologies including lightpath or circuit-like switched connections for demanding applications 6.Provide funding for outreach to the user community (science and engineering researchers), especially in Australia and New Zealand

CANS 2008, Indianapolis, Pacific Wave

CANS 2008, Indianapolis, R&E Networks and Pacific Wave (Layer 3 Participants) AARNET GEMNET GLORIAD IEEAF JGN KREONET MIMOS ( Malaysia ) QATAR SINET SINGAREN TANET/TWAREN TRANSPAC2 INTERNET2 CALREN (HPR) DREN ESNET NASA NLR NREN PNWGP Pacific Wave CA*NET4 BCNet CUDI ( RedCLARA ) US Nets Latin America Nets Canadian Nets Asia/Oceania Nets (mostly)

PW Traffic PW Traffic ( PW Traffic CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

Global R&E Connectivity US GOLES and XPs’ Starlight (Chicago)Starlight Pacific Wave (Los Angeles, Seattle, Sunnyvale, extension to Tijuana)Los AngelesSeattle MANLAN (New York)MANLAN AMPATH NGIXEast (Washington DC) Atlantic Wave (New York, DC, Miami, extension to São Paolo)Atlantic Wave CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

StarLight CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

MANLAN CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

CANS 2008, Indianapolis, Pacific Wave (technical details)

Common Features Large Ethernet Switch supporting private and public VLANS –Dominant technology for layer 3 interconnect (some minor differences in implementation) –Widely used for “lightpath” interconnect Large SONET switch supporting true circuits –Several vendor solutions with different capabilities and control languages –Some (growing) use for DCN Optical switch (some) – typically not in production use CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

Virtual (and real) Circuit Services (US) (1.5) DCN – circuit switched (2) Ethernet based VLANS – virtual circuits with best effort or managed capacity (2.5) MPLS – virtual circuits with best effort or managed capacity (3) IP overlays CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

Starlight CANS 2008, Indianapolis,

CANS 2008, Indianapolis, Lightpaths (Layers 1.5 and 2) at PW Gloriad Cinegrid AARNET (S) (to TλEX) IEEAF Optiputer CA*NET TransLight SEA-CHI (CWave) NLR Waves NLR Framenet CALREN-XD Internet2 DCN PNWG Pacific Wave

Challenge for the GOLES and XP’s Typically they try to be neutral (open). “We do it your way.” Results in much being manually configured (today) with a fairly complex set of hardware Permanent versus Dynamic services Transport versus user connections What needs to be standardized? What needs to be automated? Are we ready for that? –Service and interface definitions –Further experimentation –Technology advancements (“It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future”) US-REX What capabilities need to be added? What services expectations from Asia/Oceania over the next few years? CANS 2008, Indianapolis,