1. The Campus as key to Internet2 Engineering Atlanta Guy Almes 30 May 2000

2. Outline of Talk A Internet2 Engineering Objectives A The Logic of End-to-End Performance • Our Aspirations • Threats to these Aspirations • Promising Approaches to Success A The Internet2 End-to-End Performance Initiative

3. Internet2 Engineering Objectives A Provide our universities with superlative networking: • Performance • Functionality • Understanding A Make superlative networking strategic for university research and education

4. The End to End Challenge A Support advanced networking end to end A Performance • 100 Mb/s across the country normative • several multiples possible in some cases A Functionality • Multicast • Quality of Service • IPv6 • Measurements

5. What are our Aspirations?  Candidate Answer #1: Switched 100BaseT + Well-provisioned Internet2 networking ® 80 Mb/s A But user expectations and experiences vary widely

6. What are our Aspirations? A Candidate Answer #2: Lower user expectations and minimize complaining phone calls A There is a certain appeal I suppose...

7. What are our Aspirations? A Candidate Answer #3: Raise expectations, encourage aggressive use, deliver on performance/functionality to key constituencies. A Not the easy way, but necessary for success

8. Why should we Care? A Advanced faculty needs: • Effective access to remote facility: quickly move large datasets. PPDG: 400 Mb/s to CERN by 2003. • Interactive access: video or control or VoIP. Very low loss/jitter. A We (in several senses) need to deliver the goods.

9. Why should we Care? A "We" as the university community. A "We" as campus networking specialists. A "We" as networking professionals. A "We" as the (broad) Internet2 project. A Low aspirations are dangerous to us.

10. Abilene core November 2000 Seattle Kansas City Denver Cleveland New York Atlanta Houston Sacramento Los Angeles Indianapolis Washington

11. Abilene Connections by (roughly) summer 2001

12. International Peering STAR TAP APAN/TransPAC, CA*net3, IUCC, NORDUnet, RENATER, REUNA, SURFnet, SingAREN, SINET, TAnet2 CERnet, (HARnet) OC12 New York DANTE*, JANET, NORDUnet, SURFnet CA*net3 Seattle CA*net3, (AARnet) Sunnyvale (SINET) Los Angeles SingAREN, SINET Miami (REUNA, RNP2, RETINA) OC3-12 El Paso (CUDI) San Diego CUDI

13. The Current Situation A We have a combined Internet2 infrastructure of considerable capacity • examples of 240 Mb/s flows A End to end performance varies widely • but 40 Mb/s flows not always predictable • users don't know what their expectations should be A Note the mismatch

14. Threats to End to End Performance A BW = C x packet-size / ( delay x sqrt(packet-loss )) (Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi, and Ott, CCR, July 1997) A Context: • Network capacity • Geographical distance • Aggressive application

15. BW µ C / delay delay due to distance original raw bandwidth

16. BW µ C / delay delay due to distance more raw bandwidth

17. Threats to End to End Performance A Network Path • local / department / campus • gigaPoP / backbone / exchange points A Host problems • OS / TCP • Hardware: NIC, CPU, memory, bus • Application

18. Threats to End to End Performance A Fiber problems • dirty fiber • dim lighting • 'not quite right' connectors

19. Threats to End to End Performance A Fiber problems A Switches • horsepower • full vs half-duplex • auto-sense 10/100 • head-of-line blocking

20. Threats to End to End Performance A Fiber problems A Switches A Inadvertently stingy provisioning • mostly communication • happens also in international settings

21. Threats to End to End Performance A Fiber problems A Switches A Inadvertently stingy provisioning A Wrong Routing • asymmetric • best use of Internet2 • distance

22. Threats to End to End Performance A Fiber problems A Switches A Inadvertently stingy provisioning A Wrong Routing A Host issues • NIC • OS / TCP stack • CPU

23. Perverse Result A 'Users' think the network is congested or that the Internet2 infrastructure cannot help them A 'Planners' think the network is underutilized, no further investment needed, and users don't need high performance networks

24. Promising Approaches A Work with key motivated users A 'Shining a flashlight' on the problem A Measurements A Divide-and-Conquer A Understanding Application Behavior A Getting it right the first time

25. Active Measurements within Abilene Surveyors with: Active delay/loss measurements Ad hoc throughput tests

26. Application to Performance Debugging

28. Divide and Conquer A Systematically identify/isolate the network segment at fault A Can we make this systematic and (eventually) automated?

29. End to End Advanced Functionality A Multicast A IPv6 A QoS A Measurements

30. Creating Internet2 Value A Build the infrastructure together A Make end-to-end performance and advanced functionality routine A Identify and connect valuable resources for our faculty and students A Have fun