1. - 1 - Network Infrastructures A view from the campus Jean-Paul Le Guigner Jplg@cru.fr

2. Before the last slide (in case I forget;-) No homogeneous view From the best to the badly off. Real contrasts depending on where « you » are : Geographical location University policy / strategy concerning IT For many (campus) still a long way to go Not for the larger ones

3. French networking infrastructure three (even four) storeyed rocket Problems deriving from that situation : disparity between national and regional ambition different timings regional-networks.version-X and Renater.version-X+1 different communities served requirements not coherent

4. Regional networks MAN Renater3 Res. & Educ. Internet ISP (ISDN, ADSL, LRL) From 1 to 2,5Gbs 2,5Gbs MAN GE

5. Renater Regional Networks Whos in control GIP Renater Universities and research institutions Collectivités régionales autres coll. territoriales MANs Internet Our community

6. Renater Regional Networks Whos is paying GIP Renater Universities and research institutions Collectivités régionales autres coll. territoriales MANs Internet Our community Through national representation

7. - 7 - Level by level

8. RENATER-3 622 Mbit/s 155 Mbit/s 34 Mbit/s 2.4 Gbit/s Reims Caen Rouen Rennes Nancy Strasbourg Poitiers Bordeaux Lyon Grenoble Toulouse. Montpellier Marseille Nantes Besançon Clermont- Ferrand Limoges Paris Dijon Lille Sophia Compiègne Orléans Corte

9. INTERNATIONAL CONNECTIONS America Internet 2 Asia Pacific GEANT Internet : SFINX (french GIX) DOM - TOM Paris Lyon Koréa: TEIN

10. Campus networks ã Key points : ç Network backbones at Gbits/s with : reliability (organisational and infrastructure issues) security ( VPNs), implementation of CoS. [VoIP, Videoconf, …] ç 10 Mbits/s really available to the end users (100 if needed) less than 10 as a factor of overallocation Still objectives on several campuses

11. MANs Mastered by our community 1. Ownership of infrastructure 2. Or leasing of services (where several competitive offers exist) In operation: Strasbourg, Besançon, Montpellier, Nancy, Metz, valenciennes, Limoges, Rouen, Lyon, Caen, Grenoble, 4 en Ile de France, Toulouse, Rennes, Brest, Le Havre, Nantes, St Etienne, Dijon, … Projects : Bordeaux, Amiens, 2 en Ile de France, Reims,

12. Regional networks ã First versions in early 90s now in « version 2 » for most ã Not running as fast as Renater ã Reasons ? (be careful, no true in every case) : ç « regional governments » not convinced but the specific needs of the research and higher education community, ç No competition no real alternative level of costs ç No involvement of our community in the final engineering of the network (the operator provide a multiservice stuff), ending up as a « blackbox », not even magic And neveretheless they are essential in our model. To day they are the weakest links.

13. Status for universities Listed by catégories 1. Those with one (main one) campus connected HSpeed Plus: the one called « quickly connectable » under some conditions (not really a problem). 2. Those « connectable after some efforts » – Approach of regional management 3. Those not connectable in a short term 48 13 19 But, all universities have multiple campus spread Around. So even if one (closest to the Renater NRD) is correctly connected, several others may not be

14. Needs and requirements ã Cultural exception? NO same as in other countries ã A short list: ç Facilities sharing (storage, [meta-]computing, …), ç Performant institution or project VPNs, ç QoS(Something) for : Videoconferencing and VoIP, Collaborative working, (peer to peer buzzword?) Distance teaching ç Mobility (but this is more or like a local issue)