2. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL1 Report to ICFA February 11, 2000 Matthias Kasemann, FNAL

3. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL2 ICFA SCIC meeting: Nov. 13, 1999 Invited UK representative: Richard Hughes-Jones Topics discussed: Status reports from Canada, CERN, DESY, France, Italy, Japan, UK. Wide Area networks end-to-end performance measurements for video and file transfer show need for application tuning. Quality of Service for National Research Networks and monitoring results. Plans for Video system (VRVS project) for higher quality and extended compatibility to video clients.

4. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL3 Impact of loss on applications Email fairly insensitive to quality, may be delayed but keeps retrying for days and eventually gets through Web usually has human but expectations are low, performance often more limited by server, human present so can retry Bulk file transfer unattended, if > 10-12% loss connections can time out Interactive telnet, voice very time & loss sensitive E.g. telnet/ssh loss of > 3% severely impacts typing ability Importance of loss/performance

5. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL4 Performance Measurements from 28 monitors in 15 countries Over 500 remote hosts 72 countries (covers all 56 PDG booklet countries) Over 1200 monitor-remote site pairs Over 50% of HENP collaborator sites are explicitly monitored as remote sites by PingER project Atlas (37%), BaBar (68%), Belle (23%), CDF (73%), CMS (31%), D0 (60%), LEP (44%), Zeus (35%), PPDG (100%), RHIC(64%)

6. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL5 Results: Top level view - Aug-99 Good (0-1%) Acceptable (1-2.5%) Poor (2.5-5%) V. poor (5-12%) Bad (> 12%) ~ 2000 pairs in 56 countries % packet loss between regions Monitoring region Remote region Within region (on diagonal) good to acceptable

7. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL6 Euro pean perfor mance from U.S.

8. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL7 E. Eur- ope Loss Good Accept Poor V. poor Bad Slovakia Czech R. Czech republic & Slovakia better than most, also Bulgaria Bulgaria CH, DE, & UK have better connections to Russia than most, within Russia OK Most v.poor to bad Baltic States from US are v. poor Latvia Lithuania Estonia Romania Albania Albania & Romania good Croatia Macedoni a Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia poor to bad Slovenia

9. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL8 Russia ESnet – NSk good, ESnet – ITEP & IHEP improved with new satellite Canada & Edu bad all over DESY, CERN improved to acceptable to ITEP, IHEP, NSK with new satellite, Dubna still v. poor to bad, UK poor to ITEP & NSK KEK good to NSk, v. poor to ITEP

10. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL9 Europe seen from U.S. 650m s 200 ms 7% loss 10% loss 1% loss Monitor site Beacon site (~10% sites) HENP country Not HENP Not HENP & not monitored

11. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL10 India / Mumbai / TIFR ESnet acceptable, Brazil, E. Europe/Russia poor to bad Got better for Japan (KEK & RIKEN), ESnet, W. Europe in Oct-99, but now worse again (5 days in Nov) Stanford vs. CMU & SLAC, possibly BBN-CW peering Just added as beacon site

12. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL11 E. Asia Good (0-1%) Acceptable (1-2.5%) Poor (2.5-5%) V. poor (5-12%) Bad (> 12%) Japan good to acceptable to N. America & W. Europe S. America poor to all E. Asia Hong Kong & China similar (v. different routes)

13. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL12 Asia seen from U.S. 3.6% loss 10% loss 0.1% loss 640 ms 450 ms 250ms

14. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL13 S. America Good (0-1%) Acceptable (1-2.5%) Poor (2.5-5%) V. poor (5-12%) Bad (> 12%) Generally poor to bad Argentina is bad with everyone Within Brazil & within Colombia, & Brazil to Colombia is acceptable Columbia looks like to be the best

15. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL14 Latin America, Africa & Australasia 4% Loss 2% Loss 350 ms 700ms 170 ms 220 ms

16. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL15 Middle East SLAC-Israel big change ~Sep 5 RTT went from 250 msec (E3 via London) to 620 msec Loss went from 6% to 1% ESnet peers with Israel at Chicago STAR-TAP (T3 satellite to Israel) 9 hops Iran (chapar.ipm.ac.ir) RTT 1000 msec. 11% loss ESnet - ATT (NY) - Unisource (NL) - archway 13 hops

17. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL16 Bulk transfer - Performance Trends Bandwidth TCP < 1460/(RTT * sqrt(loss)) Note: E. Europe NOT catching up

18. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL17 Problem areas - summary Germany was bad with.ca &.edu yet good with ESnet. DESY improved to poor/acceptable in Aug with dedicated 3.5Mbps PVC to US/Canada R&E, apart from Carleton Russia (W) bad to.ca &.edu, good to ESnet, mixed to Europe, poor to.jp. Dubna worse than others. ITEP/IHEP better since new satellite Former E. block generally poor to bad China/Hong Kong poor to very poor with most S. America poor to very poor India poor

19. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL18 Monitoring results: summary(1) Performance is getting better Within Western NRENs things are good  Good enough even for VoIP in terms of RTT, jitter, loss Internet reliability  in some cases is beginning to approach that specified in phone company frame-relay contracts, but still has a way to go to meet phone company standards of 99.999% Improving QoS requires some combination of:  Increased bandwidth, but even keeping pace with growing requirements takes constant upgrades and investment  Managed/reserved bandwidth works today in several cases  Diff Serv has big potential but it is still a research topic

20. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL19 Monitoring results: summary(2) International performance from US to sites outside W. Europe, Japan, Korea is generally poor to bad Transoceanic, needs special care, peering is critical for E. Europe, Russia, China, India, S. America performance is where N. America & W. Europe were 4 years ago and may not be improving as fast so the discrepancy is likely to increase.

21. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL20 Report on immediate problem areas: One particular problem area is the outlying regions (outside the developed regions of the world, W. Europe, N. America and Japan) who have poor connectivity (and may be falling further behind) and yet are delivering important contributions to HEP. In many cases the countries need an enabler to push the Internet connectivity for the NREN. ICFA members are closer to the level that can have an impact on the political representatives in the regions.

22. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL21 VRVS summary Principal Investigator: Caltech and ESnet Collaborators: CERN, Internet2/UCAID The Virtual Rooms Videoconferencing System namely called VRVS has been put in production since early 1997. It provides a low cost, bandwidth-efficient, extensible tool for videoconferencing and collaborative work over networks within the High Energy and Nuclear Physics communities and to some extent within Research and Education at large.

23. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL22 VRVS Current & future VRVS is now a production system: As of today, more than 1937 machines from 1253 different users are registered into the system. During year 1999, 872 Multipoint Conferences has been Conducted (Total 2325 Hours). More than 3000 point to point connection established. 7 Virtual Rooms are available for World Wide Conferences in addition to the 4 available for each Continent (America only, Europe only, Asia only). VRVS Future evolution/integration (R&D) Deployment and support of VRVS. High Quality video and audio (MPEG1, MPEG2,..). Shared applications, environment and workspace. Integration of H.323 I.T.U Standard into VRVS. Quality of Service (QoS) over the network. Documentation and user-configuration recommendations. Improved security, authentication and confidentiality.

24. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL23 ICFA-SCIC would like to point out: How can we help to improve the network situation and spend limited amount of money? Suggested goal: HENP members of the country should participate in R&D project with a western Lab/experiment that requires video conferencing for all collaborators to participate in, this may help to drive the requirement. LHC detector production+ quality control, communication to production site fully participate in LHC meetings and working groups from home institutes, publications of schools contribution to collaborative software development (à la VRVS) with special emphasis on low bandwidth requirements.

25. February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL24 ICFA-SCIC would like to recommend: Suggested goal (‘ctd): This proposal needs to be acceptable to the country, which requires pre-discussion with the country. Video conferencing rooms and tools must be more widely available (at center (CERN, FNAL, SLAC) and remote) low entrance cost for VRVS on desktop and conference rooms Establish a 2Mbps line to the country.