Internet2_ Connectivity_ and Advanced Interpersonal Communications by gjmpzlaezgx

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 59

									Internet2, Connectivity, and
Advanced Interpersonal
Communications

 Ben Teitelbaum, Internet2
 <ben@internet2.edu>

 November 19th 2003
           Internet Who?
Elevator Explanation
  •   Internet2's mission is to develop and deploy advanced
      network applications and technologies, accelerating the
      creation of tomorrow’s Internet
Who we really are
  • Membership organization of 200+ US research universities
  • Parent 501.3c (UCAID) has board of university presidents
  • Project supported by numerous partnerships (government,
    industry, international)
Goals
  • Enable new generation of applications
  • Re-create leading edge R&E network capability
  • Transfer capability to global production internet
  Internet2 Growth

1996
  Project created as a collaboration among 34
  leading research universities
1997
  Over 100 university members, first corporate
  memberships, formally incorporated as a not-for-
  profit organization
1998
  123 university members, 30 corporate members,
  and 22 affiliate members
Today
  205 regular university members, 66 Corporate
  members, and 41 Affiliate members
Internet2 Universities
205 University Members, November 2003
      Internet2 Corporate Sponsors
• Arbor Networks     • inSORS Integrated
• BellSouth            Communications
• BroadSoft          • Ixia
• Ford Motor         • Polycom
  Company              Worldwide
• Foundry Networks   • RADVision
                     • VBrick Systems
           Internet2 Corporate Members
Advanced Infrastructure Ventures   Level 3 Communications
Apparent Networks                  Motorola Labs
Apple Computer, Inc.               Network Associates, Inc.
Aventis                            Nippon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT)
Avici Systems                      PaeTec Communications, Inc.
Blackboard, Inc                    Ping Identity Corporation
C-SPAN                             Pfizer
Ceyba Corporation                  Procket Networks
CIENA                              Progress Software
Comcast Communications, Inc.       ProQuest Information and Learning
Community of Science, Inc.         Prous Science
EBSCO Information Services         Star Valley Solutions, Inc.
Eli Lilly Corporation              Syntel, Inc.
Enterasys Networks, Inc.           Telecom Italia Lab
Fujitsu Laboratories of America    TippingPoint Technologies
General Motors                     Verizon Communications
Hewlett-Packard Company            Video Furnace, Inc.
Interoute                          Warner Bros.
Japan Telecom Co., LTD             Wave Three Software
Johnson & Johnson                  Yipes Enterprise Services, Inc.
Sponsored Education Group
Participants
     Areas of Emphasis
Advanced Network Infrastructure
Security
Federated Authentication
Applications
        Network Infrastructure Summary
Continuing Abilene development
   10Gbps Upgrade
   Abilene Observatory
   Provide dedicated capability for experiments
   Support NSF-funded PlanetLab, 100x100 projects

Convening a hybrid optical design team
Participating in and working with National
LambdaRail
Established FiberCo to support regional optical
networking efforts
Supporting and collaborating with international efforts
through MAN LAN (Lambda Service) and Global
Lambda Integration Facility (GLIF)
     Regional Optical Networks:
     Framework for Development
Regional networking is moving away
from the gigaPoP model
New efforts build on an owned-assets,
facility-based networking model
Regional networking will play an
increasingly important role
FiberCo supports these efforts
       Regional Optical Networks:
       Leading and Emerging Efforts
California (CALREN)        New York + New
Colorado (FRGP/BRAN)       England region (NEREN)
Connecticut (Connecticut   North Carolina (NC
Education Network)         LambdaRail)
Florida (Florida           Ohio (Third Frontier
LambdaRail)                Network)
Indiana (I-LIGHT)          Oregon
Illinois (I-WIRE)          Rhode Island (OSHEAN)
Maryland, D.C. &           SURA Crossroads Texas
northern Virginia (MAX)
Michigan                   Utah
        National Optical Efforts
New class of national-scale facilities-based networking
Supports cutting-edge network research and
experimentation
Supports next generation, network-based applications
in science, engineering and medicine
Provides opportunities for differentiated services
Examples:
   National LambdaRail
   USA Waves
       Hybrid Optical Networking
Includes both IP packet and connection-
oriented capabilities
Provides new opportunities for demanding
applications and network experimentation
Does not obviate security or performance
Requires interoperability and varying degrees
of on-demand resource allocation
Depends on and takes advantage of
emerging facilities-based national, regional,
metropolitan, and international efforts
      International Efforts
Key prototypes of connection-oriented
services
  NetherLight (Netherlands)
  CA*net 4 (Canada)
  STAR LIGHT (US)
Participating in and integrating with
international efforts
  Global Lambda Integration Facility (GLIF)
  MAN LAN (Lambda Service)
        Global Lambda Integration
        Facility (GLIF)
Ongoing effort to build dedicated lightpaths
(circuit switched sub- ’s) between HPC
resources internationally
   StarLight (Chicago), CA*Net (Canada), SURFnet (The
   Netherlands) are established leaders
   NORDUnet (Scandinavia), Czech Republic, Japan active
Internet2 now proposes to enter this effort
   Now placing an optical Ethernet/SONET multiplexer (Cisco
   15454) in the MAN LAN facility in NYC
   Planning to move the 10-Gbps IEEAF/Tyco  (NYC-
   Amsterdam/SURFnet) from Abilene NYC router to MAN
   LAN optical TDM
   Will interconnect with CA*Net GLIF effort in NYC
   Also will interconnect with Abilene and MAN LAN Ethernet-
   based int’l R&E exchange
     Areas of Emphasis
Advanced Network Infrastructure
Security
Federated Authentication
Applications
      Security
Network security requires approaches
that:
  Minimally compromise network performance and
  allow applications requiring advanced network
  services to function
  Sustain, in so far as possible, the end-to-end
  nature of the Internet architecture

Network security, host software, and
middleware are inter-dependent
         Task Force on Computer and
         Network Security
 Established to improve the security computing
 environments and to increase awareness of IT
 security issues across higher education
 Internet2 and EDUCAUSE provide staff support
 Accomplishments include:
    Framework for Action
    1st Annual Security Professionals Workshop
    Four NSF-supported Workshops
    Higher Education Contribution to National Strategy to Secure
    Cyberspace
    White Paper on Campus Cybersecurity Legal Issues

http://www.educause.edu/security
         Security at Line Speed
         Workshop
 Goal:
 Identify the requirements, architectures, and
 best practices needed to guide future network
 deployments for the research community
 Deliverables
    Pre-workshop security survey
    White paper (just released)
 Support provided by:
    National Science Foundation
    The University of Washington
    Indiana University

http://apps.internet2.edu/sals/
     Areas of Emphasis
Advanced Network Infrastructure
Security
Federated Authentication
Applications
      Federated Authentication
Scalable, decentralized infrastructure
Critical to a broad range of initiatives
Being adopted and implemented
  Industry
  International
Part of middleware as an increasingly
enabling element of advanced networking
Map of Middleware Land
     Middleware
Middleware is the stuff that makes
“transparently use” happen, providing
persistency, consistency, security,
privacy, and capability.
         Shibboleth
 Supports inter-institutional sharing of web
 resources subject to access controls
 Fundamental architecture and software for
 federated authentication
 Includes:
    Standards-based approach
    Active Management of Privacy
    Scalable Trust and Policy Framework
 Pilot deployments included over 20 leading
 universities and research institutions
 Open source implementation version 1.1
http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/
     InCommon Federation

Focused on facilitating collaboration
through the sharing of protected network-
accessible resources
Based on Shibboleth
Separate from Internet2 membership
Projected to begin operation in early 2004
       New Partnerships
Work with JISC on Virtual Organizations
  A key cross-stitch among enterprises for inter-institutional
  collaborations
  VO’s range from Grids to digital libraries, from earthquake
  engineering to collaborative curation, from managing
  observatories to managing rights
Interworkings with Australian, Swiss, French
universities
Corporate interactions with MS, Sun, Liberty
Alliance, etc
     Areas of Emphasis
Advanced Network Infrastructure
Security
Federated Authentication
Applications
     Applications Priorities

Advance a vision for applications that
motivate and, in turn, are enabled by
cyberinfrastructure
Promote large scale adoption of
common applications
Address the critical needs of research
subcommunities
Encourage innovation at the edge
(and be attentive to emergent apps)
       The Internet of the Future and
       the Future of Medicine

• High bandwidth
  human interaction
• Low latency
  virtual reality
• Reliable access to
  computational                   Source:
                                  Parvati Dev

  resources                       Stanford



• Secure retrieval of
  medical images
  and data                              1
       Internet2 Commons
 Intended to accelerate
 collaboration technologies
 adoption
   Member-driven services
   Scalable and sustainable
 H.323 Multipoint Videoconferencing
   Face-to-face communication over IP
   Standards-based, endpoint interoperability
   Features: onscreen display options, streaming,
   firewall traversal, 24/7 help desk, …
http://commons.internet2.edu
      My Little Corner of Internet2
Voice and Integrated Communications
  VoIP Working Group
     Co-chair: Walt Magnussen <wmagnussen@ppfs4.tamu.edu>
     Co-chair: Mike Enyeart <enyeart@indiana.edu>
  PIC Working Group
     Chair: Jermey George <jeremy.george@yale.edu>
  TAMU ITEC

Primary constituencies
  University telecom directors, technologists, and CIOs
  Voice and integrated communications industry
  People who talk
       Advanced VoIP
What’s my vision of “advanced VoIP”?
Honestly, I have no idea!
OK, so how can we nurture advanced
VOIP?
Before answering this question, it’s
useful to consider the history of earlier
communications technologies…
              Early History of the Telephone

For the first 30 years of the telephone, promoters struggled to identify
the killer application that would promote its wide adoption by home
owners and businesses. At first the telephone was promoted as a
replacement for the telegraph, allowing businesses to send messages
more easily and without an operator. Telephone promoters in the
early years touted the telephone as a new service to broadcast news,
concerts, church services, weather reports, etc. Industry journals
publicized inventive uses of the telephone such as sales by telephone,
consulting with doctors, ordering groceries over the telephone,
listening to school lectures and even long distance Christian Science
healing! The concept that someone would buy the telephone to chat
was simply inconceivable at that time.
                                          Bill St Arnaud’s summary of
                                     C. Fischer’s book America Calling
                Other Earlier Communications
                Technologies

Email
   •   The popularity of email was not foreseen by the ARPANET's
       planners. Roberts had not included electronic mail in the original
       blueprint for the network. In fact, in 1967 he had called the ability to
       send messages between users “not an important motivation for a
       network of scientific computers” . . . . Why then was the popularity
       of email such a surprise? One answer is that it represented a radical
       shift in the ARPANET's identity and purpose. The rationale for
       building the network had focused on providing access to computers
       rather than to people.
                          J. Abbate, Inventing the Internet

Peer-to-peer file sharing
   • Again, not foreseen
   • Essential ingredients: Internet2 connectivity + directory services
     (Napster, etc.)
           And the Moral Is…

Business and technology leaders…
  • …have a poor track record of predicting how new
    communications technologies will be used
  • …tend to underestimate social or seemingly “frivolous”
    uses of new technologies and overestimate the
    importance of content

Users are highly motivated to communicate
with each other, if only they can connect
               Internet2’s Secret Sauce

Demographics
  • ~4 million students (tech-savvy and talk a lot)
  • And, by the way, they graduate (tech-transfer à la email)

Connectivity
  •   Great networking connectivity
        – High-bandwidth, low-loss, low-jitter
        – End-to-end transparency (few NATs)
        – IPv6 and multicast too!
  •   Emerging middleware infrastructure / connectivity

Institutional Commitments
  • Internet2 members have committed to advance IP communications
    and promote collaborative apps
  • Many are looking for ways to reverse eroding voice revenues
            SIP.edu
Fearless Leader
  •   Dennis Baron <dbaron@mit.edu>

Goals
  • Grow number of SIP connected users
  • Increase value proposition for end-user SIP adoption
  • Promote convergence of voice and email identity
  • Low entry-cost means for campuses to...
        – Provide a useful service
        – Start getting their feet wet with SIP

Means
  • Publishing “cookbook” with several alternative “recipes”
  • Obtaining corporate sponsorship and promotional pricing
      SIP.edu Growth




>8 other schools looking seriously at it
        Voice Disaster Recovery
Fearless leader
   Chris Peabody <peabodyc@georgetown.edu>

Higher-ed is critical national infrastructure
   Internet2 schools cannot go dark during disasters
   Too many important brains, hospitals

Survivability through diversity
   PSTN and Internet each have strengths and weaknesses
   Internet allows for gradual degradation of voice quality,
   rather than call blocking, which is what you want in an
   emergency
   Combining VoIP and PSTN results in better voice
   survivability than either architecture alone
      Presence and Integrated
      Communications
Presence
  “Notification of events that facilitate
  communication” (Henning Schulzrinne)
     “On-line”, “Away”, “Idle”, “On phone”, “Out to lunch”, ...
  Back to the future
     Remember: finger, write, who?
     Presence restores the sense of community that existed
     on timesharing systems
  Forward to the future
     New standards for interoperability and scalability
     User-controlled policies
     Richer state semantics and automatic triggers
     Rich Presence
Exploring integrated communications,
rich presence, and social computing
Participatory, distributed, and
experimental service at Internet2 FMM
Hope to evolve into core Internet2
meeting infrastructure
HP Labs, Ford, Wave Three Software,
and iptel.org engaged
Microsoft coming onboard for SMM
                Internet2 Fall Member Meeting
Rich Presence    Indianapolis, IN October, 2003

								
To top