Transcript Slide 1

Update on the TERENA
Compendium, 2003
A talk about comparing
apples with oranges
in the NREN world
TNC/CUC 2003, Session 7b4
Bert van Pinxteren, TERENA
http://www.terena.nl/compendium
Compendium: product of the
COM-REN project
• A project funded by the Information Society
Technologies Programme of the Commission of the
European Communities.
•
This presentation does not represent the opinion of the European Community; the European
Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing in this
presentation.
• Compendium Review Panel: Lajos Bálint, Marko
Bonac, Urs Eppenberger, Sabine Jaume-Rajaonia,
Mike Norris.
A message for our sponsors…
Total NREN budgets, EU and EFTA countries:
300 MEUR
… and what do they spend it on?
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Transmission capacity
Equipment (switches, routers etc.)
Structure of talk
• Some new data and trends:
– Core Capacity on the network;
– Connectivity and traffic;
– The projected spread of IPv6
• Apples and oranges: some data and their problems:
– Numbers of connected institutions;
– Bandwidth for Universities;
– Where is the ‘Digital Divide’?
• Questionnaire mongering
• Areas for further consideration
Core capacity, 2001 and 2002
Gb/s
0
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
Spain
Switzerland
Portugal
Austria
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Croatia
Poland
Ireland
Lithuania
Turkey
Estonia
Latvia
Georgia
FYRoMacedonia
0.5
1
capacity 2002
1.5
capacity 2001
2
Core capacity, 2002 and 2003
Gb/s
0
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
Spain
Switzerland
Portugal
Austria
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Croatia
Poland
Ireland
Lithuania
Turkey
Estonia
Latvia
Georgia
FYRoMacedonia
1
capacity 2003
2
capacity 2002
3
the case of Spain
• early 2002: star topology with 155 Mb to all regional
centres;
• 2003: backbone at 2.5 Gb.
Core capacity, 2001 and 2002
Gb/s
0
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
Spain
Switzerland
Portugal
Austria
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Croatia
Poland
Ireland
Lithuania
Turkey
Estonia
Latvia
Georgia
FYRoMacedonia
1
capacity 2003
2
capacity 2002
3
Core capacity on the network, 2003
Gb/s
0
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
Spain
Switzerland
Portugal
Austria
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Croatia
Poland
Ireland
Lithuania
Turkey
Estonia
Latvia
Georgia
FYRoMacedonia
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
capacity 2003
Expon. (capacity 2003)
9
10
External connections, January
2003
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
Mb/s
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Others
Peering/Internet Exchanges
Other NRENs
GEANT
H
E
SW Ane
IT t
R CH
ed
SU IRI
RF S
BE ne
LN t
E
G T
C AR
E R
R SN
EN E
AT T
E
H
UN SA R
G NE
AR T
U NE
KE T
RN
U A
RA
N
D
C FN
AR
G Net
R
NE
EE T
N
PS et
AC NC
O
AR net
U NE
LA S
KB
AM IM
RE
J
%
Average external traffic load,
January 2003
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Average incoming traffic load, January 2003
Average outgoing traffic load, January 2003
IPv6: the 6net countries
IPv6: predicted implementation
Between now and 2005
Later or undecided
Between now and 2005
Later or undecided
No info provided
Number of connected institutions
(1)
12000
FCCN Portugal: connects 8600 primary schools,
1700 10000
secondary schools
8000
6000
GRNET Greece: connects 2746 primary schools,
4000
3664 secondary
schools
2000
O
SI
-A
F/
A
ze
r
ba
ija
n RH
(A IU ne
M zN C t
RARETC
ENN )
U Aet
H
RM
U
ACEAAN
L
D
oI U Onnet
T zSG e
(L c C t
A i C
SUNENe
S
R W N Tt
oE IT E )
LAduCHT
FUTNNet
NE
G D ETT
C REFN
AR N
BI BEUNNeA
MHA LNI-Ct
ARRNE
T
AMW ET
A
U RN
L E
CAKNICJ
RSUERBIM
ESR IS
TF T
U SAEnNet
N
CNINNEA
CI
RT RES ETT
e N
(B GdIRETT
AS A IS
NR
H R LEEETR
UN E IT N )
GNAN et
U ARTEET
K NR
ARER ET
NN
GPSESA
R N
FCNEC
CT
N
0
Universities
Research institutes
Primary schools
Hospitals (other than University hospitals)
Others
Institutes of higher/further education
Secondary schools
Libraries
Government departments
RHnet
IUCC
OSI-AF/Azerbaijan (AzNET)
MARNet
RENAM
URAN
HEAnet
ACOnet
GCC
UzSciNet
UL DoIT (LANET)
SUNET
SWITCH
RoEduNet
LATNET
FUNET
DFN
GRENA
CARNet
UNI-C
BELNET
BIHARNET
MARWAN
AMREJ
NIC
ULAKBIM
CERIST
SURFnet
RESTENA
SANET
UNINETT
CESNET
RedIRIS
GARR
NCIRT (BASNET)
EENet
LITNET
RENATER
HUNGARNET
UKERNA
ARNES
PSNC
Number of connected institutions (2)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Others
Government departments
Hospitals (other than University hospitals)
Libraries
Primary schools
Secondary schools
Research institutes
Institutes of higher/further education
Universities
Number of connected institutions (3)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Estonia
Lithuania
France
Universities
Research institutes
Primary schools
Hospitals (other than University hospitals)
Others
Hungary
United
Kingdom
Slovenia
Institutes of higher/further education
Secondary schools
Libraries
Government departments
Connected institutions and staff
900
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
00
Estonia
Lithuania
France
Total staff
Universities
Research institutes
Primary schools
Hospitals (other than University hospitals)
Others
Hungary
United
Kingdom
Slovenia
Institutes of higher/further education
Secondary schools
Libraries
Government departments
So, what explains it? Perhaps…
Level
Percentage of network levels paid
through the NREN budget
RENATER
UKERNA
External connections
100
100
NREN backbone
100
100
Access network
95
Metropolitan or regional
networks
85
Campus LAN
n/a
Bandwidth for Universities (1)
ISDN or lower:
0%
30%
± the EU *
Accession States
up to 2 Mb/s:
9%
37%
12%
Other countries
EU plus Norway and Switzerland, but minus Germany
28%
Bandwidth for Universities (2)
> 2 Mb, ≤ 10 Mb:
> 10 Mb, ≤ 100 Mb :
± the EU
22%
23%
Accession States
18%
18%
Other countries
23%
14%
Bandwidth for Universities (3)
> 100 Mb, < 1 Gb:
≥ 1 Gb:
15%
± the EU
10%
12%
6%
Accession States
10%
13%
Other countries
Caveats and questions…
• What is a University?
• How many researchers are at those Universities?
• How many students?
• … and what do they need??
So, where is the ‘digital divide’?
It is certainly between countries….
but just as much within countries!
0%
9%
12%
30%
37%
28%
Questionnaire mongering:
It’s fun to send questionnaires!
• For IPv6
• For SERENATE
• For … ?
But trying to get answers is a
different story!
Compendium 2003: responses
received (deadline: 7 March)
By 15 March
By 15 April
Too late
No response
(still trying!)
No contact
NRNs Feedback
• Request sent on 16th December 2002
• 11 of 28 NRNs have replied to our
questionnaire
• From the remaining:
– 4 NRNs present in today
– 13 NRNs with no answer
–
Marian Garcia ([email protected])
Why don’t we…
• try to make the Compendium questionnaire shorter;
• but make it the ONE questionnaire that everybody
answers;
• and tries to answer completely;
• work more closely with other projects, so that more
people get more answers but with fewer
questionnaires!
Role of the Compendium
The fast train itself:
GÉANT
(DANTE)
Monitoring the progress:
the Compendium
(TERENA)
Preparing for the future:
the SERENATE project
(TERENA)
Developing the argument…
Dany Vandromme, RENATER:
“As example, I would mention the Compendium (…),
which turned [out] to be extremely useful to
RENATER, to provide my national authorities with
(…)”
Developing the argument further
• Can we develop some (dynamic) norms for what
should be available for a student, a professor, a
researcher? Have NRENs already done this?
• What are the ‘indicators of tomorrow’?
But before that…
• We need to try to double-check the data
• Need your ideas
Check it out: http://www.terena.nl/compendium