22 aug 99acmkeynote1 research networks vs networks for research needs for international testbeds...

22 Aug 99 ACMKeynote 1

Research Networks vs Networks for Research

Needs for International Testbeds

Peter Kirstein

University College London


Contents of Talk

• Early national testbeds - and reactions to them

• Potted history until the 90s

• Current status - nationally & internationally

• Strengthening the present initiatives

• A proposed global project theme


The Central Theme

• Large-scale network Test-beds are essential to explore vital aspects of Internet technology and applications

• Their main aim must be research networks– Their use to support other research areas, should be

mainly to exercise and validate the research results

• Most such current funding is national, now further progress needs global test-beds


Success of Testbeds

• Today 30th anniversary first UCLA Arpanet node

– Probably most influential testbed ever– Growth 4 to 100M nodes in thirty years

• 80% pa growth rate exceeds the 16% telephone growth over a century, but beaten by mobile tel

• Clearly this has politicians’ attention


Political Requests

• Vice-President Gore has claimed fatherhood of Internet– US NGI and other testbeds major US programme

• Dutch (Surfnet) and Canadians (Canarie) have relatively large political programs– Which have mainly national testbeds– Include international connections


International Testbed Acceptance

• Does the Internet-2 Qbone Diagram mean that our battles are over– No we will analyse this further– International testbeds are still the exception– While many are partially convinced, much

more is needed.


Doubts on International Testbeds

• In 1971, ICT was asked to give moral support to our proposal for an Arpanet link– We were told one would gain as much from a two

week trip to Arpanet sites in the US• EU provided JAMES Net for research in ‘96/7

– Most access was for occasional one-hour bursts• In 1997/98 a link between Canada and the European

Research nets was provided– It was normally available only for one-off demos


Early European Views on Network Testbeds

• National networks were first to develop technology, later to use it. – SERCNET, CYCLADES good examples

• International networks were purely for technology development – EIN, most SATNET sites had no real traffic

• Euronet was exception, but PTTs killed it– Ebit, James had same fate in the 90s!


Testbeds as Policy Instruments

• In 1978 I was requested to drop work on TCP/IP for UK Coloured Book

• UCL ‘80s work was tolerated partly to keep TCP/IP and EARN out of the UK

• 1997 JAMES had to be ATM, first TEN-155 plans were similar


Possible Motivations for Testbeds• Specific technology developments

– Must be beyond specific component testing or activity that can be completely simulated

• Proof-of-concept of whole systems– e.g. scaleability, manageability, security, ease of

interfacing applications, relative advantage, interoperability, unambiguous specification

• Pilot total systems pre-commercially– May include also customer interest, economics ease of

integration with other technologies, migration strategies, encourage applications


History of Testbeds - the ‘70s• Most were mainly technology testbeds

– e.g PRNET, SATNET in the US; Cyclades, EIN in Europe

• The technology was extended to networks to support research (NSRs)– e.g. Sercnet, UUNET, Euronet in Europe,

UUNET • There were some proof of concept ones

– In the US Arpanet, in the UK EPSS (BT) were real proof of concept systems

• A few carrier data networks started– e.g. Transpac, Datapac, EDS, Telenet


History of Testbeds - the ‘80s• In the 80s, the Carriers concentrated on data-nets

providing good and global coverage – Most did not use Internet standards– They seldom developed testbeds

• Technology testbeds including new transmission and application-level techniques– VSAT and small size earth-stations in networks– ISDN pilots and early systems access to networks– Electronic mail, directories, graphics over networks– LAN-WAN gateways– First Secure net technologies


Networks to Support Research - ‘80s• During the ‘80s, most countries built networks

to support research– CSNET, MILNET, JANET, DFN, etc.– Need for stability discouraged experimentation– Emphasis on connecting users via LANs– First international nets - EARN, Internet, DECnet

• Networks & services needed management– DNS, Routing tables, Directories, SNMP– Normally did not need separate networks


Networks in the 90s• Explosive growth in technology

– WAN speeds mainly due to fibre– Qualitative jump in access capability LAN, PSTN,

Cable, ISDN, xDSL, wireless, power line carrier– Huge numbers of workstations due to cost and

functionality of workstations, WWW applications

• Resulted in large number of problems to be solved at all levels, in commercial arena– Technology, protocols, services, management


US Testbeds in Early ‘90s• DARPA concentrated on technology ones

– Only multicast conferencing application on Dartnet– Limited applications on Gigabit - but built up carrier

partnerships and national coverage by stealth

• NSF really concentrated on Supercomputers, measurement and management of divestiture

• ATDNET and VBNS became real testbeds - • VBNS moved to networks to support research

• VBNS has limited international component


Testbeds in the 90s• Both technology and application testbeds were

clearly needed, first tried to combine– ACTS and Gigabit tried to push technology and

applications. Seldom worked with applications– SuperJanet promised to provide research part, it

could not provide it because of conferencing

• Some provided related networks, with one emphasising technology, another applications– CA*Net, SURFNET, parts of DFN did well here


Other Testbeds in early ‘90s• Most of these testbeds were mainly national

– US ones were thus, with only some lower speed VBNS international services for supercomputers

– CA*net-3, Berkom, SURFNET have/had strong testbed components, most others are only networks to support research

• Recently fibre is being installed in such large bundles, that there is spare capacity– These were first used in Gigabit and Berkom in 91; it

continued with most current high-speed testbeds


Later 90s Testbeds• Some high capacity fibre networks have been

possible at non-commercial tariffs because:– Availability of fibre not yet needed commercially– Most Carriers see that they will have to have

Internet technology, but many do not know its capabilities at high speed and size

– They do not want, or cannot yet, offer these services to all commercial customers

• Outside the US these partnerships are usually national, involve only one carrier, and limited– JAMES and CANTAT-3 in ‘96 were exceptions


European National Hosts• In 1994, the ACTS programme planned

to provide National Hosts (NHs)• NHs were to be connected together, and

to provide more general facilities– National Networks to support research– To support EU researchers to collaborate– National Research Networks– Mobile telephone, satellite, etc

• In practice only the first two existed– Costs limited their use by industrial partners


US Testbeds• Internet-2 is planned to be an advanced testbed

for networking and applications– There will be very broad connectivity for special

applications

• DARPA technology testbeds supplement it– with very high speeds, advanced technology, high

reliability, active network elements, etc.

• Most technology testbeds will be national, Internet-2 will have international links


Testbeds outside the US

• Most of the testbeds are purely national– This is partly geographic, partly political, partly

the very high local international tariffs

• Some will connect to the US via STAR-TAP

• In Europe there is enough concentration to discuss a regional equivalent to Internet 2– National issues may decide what form it should be– The Quantum project is the current interim


The Quantum Project• This is an interim three year project, partly

funded by the European Union IST program– Mainly to provide stable links to National nets to

support research at OC-3, and OC-12 by 2001– Has a number of planned working groups like

those in Internet-2– Has a limited (a few Mbps) VPN capability -

available for specific short experiments– Should support EU IST researchers also– Will have US, Japanese and East European links


Schematic of TEN-155


National vs International Testbeds

• Pure technology testbeds can usually be national – Even here considerations from other countries

may broaden both thinking and applicability– International involvement may speed up broad

acceptance of the concepts

• International testbeds are more costly and complex; benefits must be justified


Aspects of International Testbeds• Size and speed - to allow exploration of scaling• Heterogeneity - to allow different features

environments and concepts to be explored• Availability - to permit applications to be built with

the stress of real use• Sensible duration - to justify the effort by all who

must commit to its success• User Commitment and Need - to ensure that the

testbed is really exercised• Usually Multi-Carrier- because of the user com-

munities in the different countries


Is TEN-155 such a testbed• TEN-155 has purchased bandwidth on a quasi-

commercial basis – Cheaper than earlier, no comparison with Abilene

• The need for stable services means real experimentation is very difficult– It is really meant for better standard services– It will try to provide advanced services, as long as

they do not interfere with other service

• In its present form it cannot be a real testbed


Internet-2 Internationalisation

• Internet-2 has large support from Qwest, Nortel and Cisco. – It will be a high-capacity, application testbed– It will peer with many US networks– Via STAR-TAP/STAR-NODE will have

several international connections

• Has advanced programmes in QoS, IPv6, network storage, TV and Video, etc


Groups joining Internet-2


Needs in a Global Testbed• Enough research bandwidth to allow both

advanced services and experimentation• A variety of access technologies and probably

backbone technologies– Pure advanced technology can be done nationally– Impacts of satellites (LEO and DBS), mobile, xDSL,

IPv6, secure infrastructures, QoS all vital

• Over-provisioning of bandwidth– Possible at some cost to availability


Current Window of Opportunity• Over-provision of fibre

– Temporary in Europe and internationally

• Many national testbeds that could be added• Strong commercial interest in the questions

that such a testbed could answer• Strong need for specific applications

– e.g. HEP, earth observation, conferencing

• Willingness by at least some large firms to participate as in Internet-2

• Certainly EU Call which includes testbeds


Proposed Project• An international initiative - at least by end 2000

– 15 countries in America, Asia, Australia and Europe– 10 terrestrial carriers participate,with six firms to provide

switches, routers, Muxes, NOCs– 3 each of mobile, DBS, LEO and Cable operators

• By the end of 2001, at least the following– OC-12 on major oceanic routes, OC-3 to national nets for

experimentation– Able to fully participate in Internet-2 activities– Mobile terminals, UMTS, DBS facilities


Proposed Target by End 2001

• Testbed service allowing 20-person, high bandwidth secured multicast conference– Mobile at a few hundred Kbps in 4 countries– Terrestrial at 10-20 Mbps over normal LANs– xDSL over telephone and cable into a QoS VPN– Use IPv6, QoS, IPSEC, Mobile IP, rugged M/c– Watched by 400 in ten countries, some with

poorer communications and limited audio via I/N


Potential Problems• Would need several carriers

– Not clear who would agree to participate together

• Regulations may forbid discrimination/cartel– Must be arranged that participation in a cost-

shared project would not incur penalties

• Carriers often want only short-term projects– Would have to give longer commitment, even if

there are changes in organisational structure

• Funders must be prepared to see even international bandwidth under-used


Conclusions

• Now is time for a large-scale research testbed– Link in National technology & applications testbeds

• It should be wider in concept than Internet-2– Including many maturing advanced technologies– Heterogeneity in infrastructure and suppliers good

• Include academia, industry & government– Easing Regulatory constraints if necessary– Preferably partnership not formal tender


The Future• Early indications from some possible

industrial participants show strong interest

• Let us try to bring in areas of the world currently left out

• Let us start the new Millenium with making such a global projects a reality

22 aug 99acmkeynote1 research networks vs networks for research needs for international testbeds...

Documents

testbeds technology

management slide

technology testbeds

99acmkeynote10 testbeds

telenet slide

99acmkeynote6 slide

similar slide

99acmkeynote15 networks