Transcript No Slide Title

Progress of the SERENATE
studies
Karel Vietsch
TERENA Secretary General
SERENATE Project Manager
GÉANT Policy Committee meeting
Schiphol, 28 November 2002
SERENATE basics
 Strategic study into the evolution of research &
education networking in Europe over the next 5-10
years. Looking into the technical, organisational and
financial aspects, the market conditions and the
regulatory environment. Will provide inputs to the
policy-making of the EC, national governments and
funding bodies, research institutions and research &
education networks.
 May 2002 – September 2003
 Project partners: TERENA, DANTE, CTI, Academia
Europaea, ESF. With strong involvement of national
research & education networks.
 Needs active participation from all stakeholders!
SERENATE’s 14 work items
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
Initial Workshop
Transport Infrastructure
Regulatory Situation
Operators Workshop
Infrastructure Forecast
NREN Models
Infrastructure Scenarios
Equipment
User Needs
Overall Strategic Scenarios
Extensions of Research Networks
Geographic Coverage
Final Workshop
Final Report
Where are we today?
We are about to complete some work items
and start a few new ones
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
Initial Workshop (1)
 took place at La Hulpe from 17-18 September 2002
 94 participants from: national research & education
networks, researchers, government and funding
bodies, telecom operators, equipment
manufacturers
 interesting plenary presentations:






researcher’s, educationalist’s and librarian’s view
policies/politics (EP, EC, ENPG)
the view from the campus (FR, UK)
the continental view (GÉANT, Internet2)
optical networking
problems in real life
 breakout discussion sessions on Technology,
Economics, Geography, Researchers’ Needs, Other
Users’ Needs
Initial Workshop (2)

breakout discussion sessions on five questions:
1. Security inhibits user-to-user connectivity. Discuss.
2. Is geographically ubiquitous connectivity for European
researchers (a) sustainable? (b) extensible?
3. What should Europe do about connectivity to “neighbouring
areas”?
4. How should the national research & education networks
community transfer their experience and/or expertise to
other communities?
5. Can (should) we recommend a
minimum/average/acceptable level of service for each
European researcher?

plenary session, including preliminary impressions
Initial Workshop (3)
Some preliminary impressions (1):
 From hardware to services:
Research networking is evolving fast. It is not so much just
getting “hardware connectivity” to the researcher’s desk,
but it is increasingly about delivering a set of services
needed by researchers (and others). The user wants
information access, collaborative tools, “disciplinary Grids”.
AAA and Web/Grid services will be part of the delivery
mechanism.

Research & education networks are a resource:
Lots of expertise. Growing understanding by government of the
importance of ICT as a driver for economic prosperity.
Growing understanding by governments of the value of their
research & education network’s expertise. Increasing
requests to capitalise on that expertise.
Initial Workshop (4)
Some preliminary impressions (2):
 Technology:
The “optical wave” is a powerful one. We need to find a
coherent approach to the “steadily increasing amplitude” of
optical networking.

Economics:
We need a clear understanding of any regulatory barriers that
we could face in deploying pan-European fibre. Does it
matter whether you actually own fibre, or lease it on a longterm basis, or maybe even lease wavelengths?

Geography:
There is a conflict between two fundamental EU-policy
concepts: equal opportunities for researchers wherever they
are (ERA)  subsidiarity.
•
Researcher-User Needs:
As much as they can get (and afford). AAA, Grids etc.
Initial Workshop (5)
Some preliminary impressions (3):
 Other Users’ Needs:
Could one develop benchmarks for schools, libraries, hospitals
etc.?

Policy and funding:
Dialogue with governments and politicians (national and
European level) needed.
www.serenate.org/workshop1.html
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
Regulatory situation

study into the status of regulatory development in:






each of the EU Accession States
Portugal, Greece
the other EU Member States as a whole
carried out by CTI and Antelope Consulting
started in May 2002 (one month before schedule)
study to be completed in November 2002
Your help needed!

report in December 2002
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
Transport Infrastructure








fact-finding on the transport and infrastructure
market – deployment and trends, incl. pricing and
availability and market development as well as
global connectivity issues
carried out by DANTE and CTI
started in June 2002
material GÉANT procurements as one of the inputs
confidential interviews with European-level
operators
taking into account results of Operators Workshop
study to be completed in November 2002
report in December 2002
Operators Workshop (1)



took place in Amsterdam on 8 November 2002
organised by TERENA and DANTE
directed at traditional and “alternative” operators:




new pan-European operators
traditional operators that have developed pan-European
capabilities
unreconstructured monopolists
regional operators
Operators Workshop (2)

discussion sessions on:




technology: “Protocol Wars: Return of the Circuit Switch”
pricing and geography: “How to close the Digital Price
Divide in Europe?”
stability of the industry: “Will we see more operators
getting into serious problems?”
relations between operators and research networks:
“Business relationship or partnership?”
www.serenate.org/workshop2.html
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
Equipment







study into the availability and characteristics of
equipment for next-generation networks
carried out by DANTE and TERENA
contributions from technical experts from TERENA
TF-NGN
started in July 2002
questionnaire developed; interviews with
equipment manufacturers to take place in
November and December 2002
study to be completed in December 2002
report in January 2003
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
NREN Models







case studies on novel infrastructure acquisition
initiatives
analytic report
carried out by CTI
results to be discussed in workshop aimed at
NRENs, organised by TERENA on 5 February 2003
in Noordwijkerhout (NL)
started in August 2002
study to be completed in February 2003
end-report in March 2003
Where are we today?
M
J
J
A
S
O N D J F M A M J J A
Initial Workshop (a)
Operators Workshop (d)
Final Workshop (m)
Regulatory Situation (c)
InfrastructureForecast (e)
NREN Models (f)
Transport Infrastructure (b)
Equipment (h)
User Needs (i)
Extension of RNs (k)
Geographic Coverage (l)
Infrastr. Scenarios (g)
Overall Stategic Scenarios (j)
Final Report (n)
S
Researchers’ Needs







study of the networking needs of users in the
European research community
carried out by Academia Europaea and ESF
started in August 2002
Web questionnaire developed and large number of
researchers invited to respond
draft report to be discussed in workshop in
Montpellier from 17-19 January 2003
study to be completed in February 2003
end-report in February 2003
Workshop for NRENs !



Noordwijkerhout, 4-5 February 2003
Expect ~ 40 participants (at least one from each
NREN)
Discuss progress and issues, a.o.:






Research user needs
Development of the regulatory situation
Present status of international connectivity
Case studies on “alternative” models
Equipment for very high-speed networking
The new complexity of networking and how to handle
it
Very important that all NRENs are there!
Keep watching this space….
www.serenate.org
Issues for discussion here:






Different classes of research-users. Research
networking moving from “one size fits all” to more
advanced facilities with a smaller footprint.
The new complexity of networking. Different
services for different kinds of users introduce a
new complexity, even more so because many need
end-to-end across multiple domains.
How can the voice of users be heard more clearly?
Can the current model of network procurement and
management accommodate these changes?
How will SERENATE influence the Commission’s
policies/actions in FP6?
How will the results of SERENATE affect the
behaviour of the GÉANT Policy Committee?