Toward the Next Generation Network - The HOPI Testbed - PowerPoint

							Toward the Next Generation Network The HOPI Testbed
Rick Summerhill Director, Network Research, Architecture, and Technologies, Internet2 Internet2 Fall Member Meeting Philadelphia, PA 20 September 2005

Time-Line
• October 2007 - End of recent 1-year Abilene transport MoU extension
• Sets next-generation network planning timeline
• • • • • Architecture definition: 1/1/2006 Transport selection: 4/1/2006 Equipment selection: 7/1/2006 Backbone deployed: 1/1/2007 Connector transition: 2007

• Concurrently, review overall business plan and management model • Network design time frame: 2007-2012

• HOPI testbed is expected to be in place for 2-3 years, to experiment with future protocols
• Refine and evolve next generation architecture
2

Basic Requirements
• Recent Reports
• Abilene TAC report • Group A report

• Requirements multi-dimensional in scope, for example:
• Provide capabilities at all network layers (layer) • Provide capabilities for both short term and long term applications or projects (duration) • Provide capabilities at a variety of different levels of robustness, from production to experimental (robustness)

• An infrastructure consisting of dark fiber, a significant number of waves, and a production quality IP network
• Create a new architecture for the R&E community
3

Architecture Requirements
• Uncongested data transport
• Including
• IP packet switching • Dedicated capacity
• Duration, Reliability, Capacity

• Simplified connectivity to
• • • • Research and education community in the US Other national networks International research and education networks Potential for commodity network peering

• Architectural constraints
• Standard hierarchy: national, regional, campus
• Expansion to additional layers if necessary

• Must be capable of evolving to support new features
• Dynamic provisioning to some degree • Hybrid models for data networking
4

Applications
• Focus must on applications
• It’s not just about creating dynamic circuits, but supporting applications that need rich topologies. • Application specific topologies • Important to understand how existing applications will use a richer architecture, and also how existing applications might be redesigned, or new applications created

• Application layer plays a fundamental role in the architecture
• Setup and tear down of application specific topologies is above the control plane layer • Again, all this should be transparent to the user
5

Backbone Footprint
• Basic component will be ITU grid waves that interconnect nodes on a national fiber footprint
• Number of waves expected to be from 10 to 40 waves • Bandwidth of each wave expected to be 10 Gbps (and possibly 40 Gbps) • Switching nodes between segments, optical or electrical

• Schematic:

6

Switching Capabilities
• Through an optical interconnecting device that serves 3 purposes:
• Provides a client interface to connecting network • Provides access to waves on the network • Provides support for sub channels on a wave
• i.e. Ethernet VLANS, SONET paths, or other suitably framed capacity. • Potentially using GFP, VCAT, and LCAS

7

RON Interface
The interface to the backbone:

• Two or more client interfaces between optical interconnects (analogous to router-to-router connections today) • Requirements:

• Potential for alien waves in the future

• Support connectivity to IP Network • Support multiple sub channels through backbone to other RONs up to capacity of interface

8

Next Generation Architecture

9

Campus Connectivity
• Hierarchy is likely to remain national to regional to campus
• RON - campus connections similar to Backbone - RON connections
• Bandwidths may be lower

• There may be state networks or campus departments in the hierarchy • The ability to create dedicated capacity across administrative domains is a key factor

• End-to-end high performance networking is a fundamental goal
• High performance IP service • High performance dedicated capacity from deep within a campus to deep within another campus
10

Dynamic Provisioning and Switching
• Dynamic provisioning across administrative domains
• • • • Setup on the order of seconds to minutes Durations on the order of hours Eventually understand the need for more dynamic capabilities Control plane development will be a key

• Switching may require unique partnerships and development of capabilities on hardware platforms
• For example, being able to isolate user capabilities at switching nodes • There is interest from carriers from the point of view of providing additional services

• All this should be transparent to the user
• View as a single network • Hybrid aspects must be built into the architecture
11

Further Investigation
• Requirements
• Group A report? • Abilene TAC report?

• Backbone
• • • • • • • What is the national footprint? Is 100 Gbps the right total bandwidth? Where are the switching nodes located? What provides the switching capabilities? What is the backhaul availability? What is the framing on the waves? Is it possible to provide support for alien waves?

12

Further Investigation
• Interconnects
• • • • • Where are the optical interconnects located? What are the optical interconnects? What are the interfaces? What is the framing on the client interfaces? What is the service offering?

• Dynamics
• • • • What degree of dynamic provisioning is required? What control plane properties are needed? What availability is required day one? When are carrier class waves needed?

• IP
• Providing carrier class wavesfor the IP network? • What is the topology of the IP backbone? • What role does dynamic provisioning play in the IP network, for example in redundancy?
13

HOPI Project - Overview
•As outlined in requirements documents, we expect to see a richer set of capabilities available to network designers and end users
• • Core IP packet switched networks A set of optically switched waves available for dynamic provisioning

•Fundamental Question: How will the core Internet architecture evolve?
• Many options being examined

•Examine a hybrid of shared IP packet switching and dynamically provisioned optical lambdas •HOPI Project – Hybrid Optical and Packet Infrastructure - how does one put it all together?
• • Dynamic Provisioning - setup and teardown of optical paths Hybrid Question - how do end hosts use the combined packet and circuit switched infrastructures?
14

HOPI Support
• Advisory Groups
• HOPI Design Team • HOPI Corporate Advisory Team • HOPI Research Advisory Panel

• HOPI Supporters
• Force10 • HP • Glimmerglass

• The HOPI Testbed Support Center
15

HOPI General Problem

16

HOPI Topology

17

HOPI Deployment
• Installed node locations
• Los Angeles Equinix facility - same location as NLR node • Washington, DC MAX/Dragon facility - same location as the NLR node • StarLight in Chicago • The Pacific Northwest GigaPoP in Seattle - Westin Building, the new location of the NLR node

• Future node locations
• New York City – NYSERNet area in 32 AoA - same location as NLR node (many thanks to NYSERNet for donating rack space and power to support the HOPI project). • Looking at additional possibilities as the southern route of NLR is installed - potentially Houston

• Circuit from NYC to London
• Early November, 2005 • Connection to GEANT2 testbeds
18

HOPI Node

19

Recent Activities
• Connections to HOPI
• • • • • UltraLight - Physics project to explore similar ideas UltraScienceNet - A project of the Department of Energy GEANT2 Testbed DRAGON CHEETAH

• RON connections under discussion • Connections to the ITECs at North Carolina, Ohio, Texas A&M, and UCSD • Note - connecting to HOPI is not about providing connectivity, rather it is to understand new ideas and paradigms. It is a testbed that will require real participation from all participants
20

Contact Information
• http://hopi.internet2.edu • hopi@internet2.edu • HOPI Call Center: (877) 472-2419

21

HOPI Testbed Support Center
• Call for proposals issued several months ago • Award of the TSC went to a collaboration between MAX, NCREN, and the GRNOC at IU • Advanced engineering and design focus
• Implement control plane activities
• The MAX GigaPoP and the NSF supported Dragon project will focus on these issues

• Coordinate application activities
• NCREN will focus on these issues

• Manage and engineer the facility
• GRNOC at IU will focus on these issues

• Focus is on dynamics and the Hybrid aspects, but also applications, security, measurement , operations, engineering, AAA
22

23

HOPI Testbed Support Center
MAX Systems & Control Plane TSC Coordination

NCREN Applications Integration

GRNOC Operations & Engineering

12/22/2009

24

Testbed Support Center Team


Core: – Rick Summerhill (Internet2) HOPI Program Director – Jerry Sobieski (MAX) – TSC Project Manager – Mark Johnson (NCREN at MCNC) co-PM – Dave Jent (GRNOC at IU) co-PM – Chris Robb (IU) – Chris Tracy (MAX) – Chris Heerman (Internet2) – Steve Thorpe (NCREN) – Bonnie Hurst (NCREN)
25

12/22/2009

Systems and Control Plane


Develop and/or port novel control plane technologies to the HOPI testbed – First phase: Deploy GMPLS protocol stacks to cover HOPI Ethernet switches




– Looking at expanding to include FSC (fiber switching ala Glimmerglass), PSC paths (MPLS LSPs), and TDM switching (e.g. next generation SONET) Integration of management plane functions into the testbed – Implement experimental AAA mechanisms to explore security and resource management schemes for hybrid networks – Integrate novel user interfaces or service models (e.g. BRUW) 12/22/2009 26

Open source DRAGON Software Suite

Systems and Control Plane




Promote and assist adoption of these control plane models to collaborating institutions, organizations, and research teams – This will enable inter-domain dynamic provisioning – a key issue for emerging hybrid networks – Encourage experimentation in regional and campus environments Evaluation and reporting of results – Dissemination of results and findings – Development of a base of Best Common Practices for designing and deploying interoperable hybrid networks

12/22/2009

27

Applications Integration




Incorporation of brave new applications – Find and adapt applications that can leverage HOPI and that will drive HOPI in relevant [network] research directions – Assist end users and campus/regional network personnel in engineering the connection(s) to HOPI for the applications Application analysis and design – Many applications may need to re-think their relationship with “the network” given the availability of deterministic and dedicated network resources
  

E.g. could an application take advantage of direct infiniband links between clusters on separate continents? Do large data sets need pre-staging or can they be effectively accessed at distance? Are there common practices/techniques or modes of thought about how applications are architected that will enable globally distributed applications to take advantage of hybrid networks?

12/22/2009

28

Applications Integration


Middleware Issues – Assist application adaptation to an “application specific topology” service layer


– Other MW issues to be explored:
 

i.e. the application must request these services of the network…how?





Performance Analysis and Measurment – Insure the applications are getting the full measure of performance from the HOPI testbed--- end-to-end thru campus, RON, and internationally as well.

How do you implement a book-ahead scheduling and reservation system for scarce network resources? How do we integrate non-network resources (computational clusters, instruments, etc.) and the network resources into a grand unified theory of resource objects for end users? Exploring GRID technologies as both a relevant application and as a candidate solution to some of these issues…

12/22/2009

29

Operations and Engineering


Design and implementation of the Testbed – Install the HOPI network elements around the country


Initial five sites are up and running



– Planning for southern route Monitor their health – Insure availability and notification of failure of equipment in the HOPI testbed
30

12/22/2009

Operations and Engineering


Systems administration and management of the installed HOPI nodes – Access and authorization – Keeping software levels secure and up to date (major effort given the number of boxes and the esoteric demands of the experimental systems and applications software…) – Inventory control and allocation of ports, modules, etc.
31

12/22/2009

Testbed Support Center Shakedown: iGrid 2005


Key points of the HOPI Demonstrations for iGRID2005 – E-VLBI Application – real time access to radio telescopes, linking them to correlators at MIT Haystack Observatory – GMPLS control plane – Porting the DRAGON protocol stacks to manage the Force10 E600 switches – Inter-domain provisioning – Three exemplar administrative domains will be part of the demo: international, national, and regional – International scope –
 

– Persistent infrastructure - A new type of demo: The infrastructure will remain in service for use by the end user community after the demos are over (!)  Expanded Support for Supercomputing 2005 – Support for UltraLight – 12/22/2009 Support for the SC05 Bandwidth Challenge 32

Telescopes in Onsala SE, Westerbork NL, Jodrell Banks UK, Kashima JP, Greenbelt MD, and Westford MA. Networks: UKLight, NetherLight, NorthernLight, SUnet, StarLight, HOPI, DRAGON, BOSnet

HOPI TSC Shakedown:

iGrid2005

12/22/2009

33

The 30,000 foot view HOPI Igrid Demo:
Kashima JP StarLight Jodrell Banks UK Westerbork NE Onsala SE

JGN2

UKLight

NetherLight

NorthernLight
MIT Haystack Observatory

Seattle

Chicago

Los Angeles

Washington

DRAGON

HOPI
12/22/2009

Greenbelt MD

Westford MA
34