Document Sample
Kansei-GENI-Connectivity_QW10 Powered By Docstoc
					Kansei Connectivity Requirements:
 Campus Deployment Case Study

  Anish Arora/Wenjie Zeng, GENI Kansei Project
Prasad Calyam, Ohio Supercomputer Center/OARnet
      Jay Young, OSU Enterprise Networking

            The Quilt GENI Workshop
                 July 22nd 2010
               Topics of Discussion
•   Connectivity Requirements Overview (Prasad)
•   Campus Researcher Perspectives (Wenjie)
•   Campus Network Provider Perspectives (Jay)
•   Regional Network Provider Perspectives (Prasad)
•   Current Status and Next Steps (All)

    Connectivity Requirements Overview
• GENI vision to create an overlay network with QoS guarantees on
  top of existing infrastructure between project sites across the U.S.
    – End-to-end Layer 2 (L2) connectivity can provide isolation, precision
      measurements, topology control, and experiment repeatability
    – One proposal: Create static and/or dynamic end-to-end layer 2 tunnels
      between sites connected by NLR and Internet2 backbones

• OSU Kansei project wants L2/L3 connectivity with several sites
    –   Researcher Web-portal is hosted at the OSU Campus
    –   OSU testbed is located at Columbus Wood Products (CWP) building
    –   Federated aggregate collaborator site is at Wayne State University
    –   ORCA Clearinghouse site for Kansei users is located at RENCI

 Connectivity Requirements Overview (2)
• Connectivity requirements being addressed by a diverse team
   – Campus Researchers: Kansei team at OSU and WSU, RENCI
   – Campus Networking Providers: OSU CSE Department Networking,
     OSU Campus Networking, WSU Campus Networking,
   – Regional Network Providers: OARnet, MERIT
   – National Network Providers: NLR, GENI ClusterD Net (GCDnet)

• Coordination of connectivity implementation discussions was a
  challenge as the group size increased
   – Isolated communications were unproductive
   – Conference calls and a project progress document were effective
   – A connectivity diagram helps! 

          (Desired) Connectivity Diagram
VLAN path planned: OSU – OARnet – MERIT – Starlight – GCDnet – NLR – RENCI

    Campus Researcher Perspectives
• KanseiGenie: a federated sensor network testbed
• Current sites:
   – Kansei at OSU and NetEye at WSU
   – Also cloned by Oklahoma State University
• Has been open to users from both inside and outside for
  experimentation for the past 3 years
• L2/L3 connectivity brings us:
   – Scalability
      • Experiments at scale (across multiple testbeds)
   – Low delay
      • Stitching multiple sensor network testbeds by simulating low-delay
         radio link
      • Near real time interaction with experiments
   – Larger bandwidth
      • Data hub: output of one experiment serves as input for another
Federated and Stitched Experimentation

 Campus Network Provider Perspectives
• OSU’s campus network was designed with three aggregation points
  and no L2 connectivity between them
• Typical questions given the desire for this connectivity have not
  been answered
   – Functional design requirements
   – What protocols, services are going to transit this network
• Security concerns
   – MAC address learning
   – Loop prevention
   – Have not see standard answers to these questions
• OSU has a cost recovery model for networking services. Internally,
  network connections need to be paid for BUT researchers haven’t
  added this to grant proposals, etc.

 Campus Network Provider Perspectives
• OSU has faced technical issues:
   – L2VPNs are not well supported on our line cards
   – Setting up additional interfaces and VLAN trunks has more cost across
     our campus
   – QinQ is not a technology that we have deployed, before we roll new
     services we want to test it in the lab
   – How many research groups desire to use this service and how that
     could be built is unknown
   – Today a single VLAN is being extended to one site on our infrastructure
     out of one of our aggregation points
   – CSE Department might extend this to another site on their own
   – Next department that wants a connection will be back at the drawing

 Regional Network Provider Perspectives
• Evaluated both Internet2 ION and NLR FrameNet options
   – NLR option pursued due to current ORCA connectivity
   – QinQ suggested, but targeted only in the next version of Sherpa
• Identified GCDNet as the L2 connections aggregator for GENI
  Cluster D projects
• L2 connectivity architecture changed due to GCDNet
   – WSU directly connects to GCDNet instead of connecting to OSU
   – MERIT connects to GCDNet and OSU connects to MERIT
      • GCDNet paying for MERIT connection port fees
   – OSU saved additional fees on one of the ports at OSU CWP
      • Only investing in 2 100Mbps ports for L2/L3 connectivity to ORCA

     How we stand with others…
(Adapted from Joe Mambretti GEC8 Talk Slides)

        Current Status and Next Steps
• VLAN translation along the end-to-end path being implemented to
  avoid conflicts of VLAN IDs
   – Agreed upon VLAN numbers: WSU (1810), OSU (1804)
   – NLR VLAN number issue handled by GCDNet

• OARnet has setup the VLAN configuration, and also has a dummy
  device at the port to respond to Ping probes

• OSU and WSU VLANs plumbed through MERIT to GCDNet switch

• VLAN paths are expected to be in place on a long-term basis

• Plans for a multi-site Cluster D connectivity demonstration at GEC9
   – Extensive testing expected to occur in October timeframe
Thank you for your attention ! 


Shared By: