The HOPI Project

Linda Winkler Argonne National Laboratory [email protected]

HOPI Design Team Co-Chair GNEW2004 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland March 16, 2004

Outline



The HOPI Project

• Problem Statement • Goals 

HOPI Resources

• Abilene • Internet2 10G Wave across NLR • MANLAN Experimental Facility • RONs 

Current Status

4/30/2020 2

(Perceived) Problems Today

   Given current technology, Abilene is a viable shared packet infrastructure. By 2006 when the current UCAID Qwest contract expires will the available technology drive us toward another architecture?

Some discipline specific networks have enormous bandwidth requirements • High Energy Physics Community • Square Kilometre Array Community Problems with packet infrastructures • Variation in throughput, delay, jitter on shared packet infrastructures.

• • • Will we have 40 Gb/s or 100 Gb/s in near future? Or more likely n*10G waves.

Increasing demand for deterministic paths.

Demand for more dynamic requirements on bandwidth and topology.

4/30/2020 3

Looking to the Future

   Examine potential new architectures • • Advanced infrastructures Packet-based network to support basic functionality and application development.

A pool of optical switched waves that support creation of dynamic networks for specific users or disciplines.

Examining a Hybrid architecture of dynamically provisioned Optical lambdas and IP Packet Infrastructure 4/30/2020 4

Deployment Issues with Potential New Infrastructures

       How do you define deterministic behavior?

How close to end nodes should optical waves be switched? Where is the new edge?

How dynamic must optically switched paths be?

What duration do we expect of dynamic paths?

What is the interaction between the packet infrastructure and the dynamically created paths or the networks they form?

May require new measurement and troubleshooting paradigm.

What are the interconnectivity requirements to end systems, other research infrastructures (for example, international or federal networks or infrastructures)?

4/30/2020 5

HOPI Project Design Team

               

Rick Summerhill, Internet2 (CoChair) Linda Winkler, Argonne (CoChair) Peter O’Neil, NCAR Bill Owens, NYSERNET Mark Johnson, MCNC Tom Lehman, ISI Philip Papadopoulos, UCSD David Richardson, PNWGP Chris Robb, Indiana Sylvain Ravot, Caltech Jerry Sobieski, MAX Steven Wallace, Indiana Bill Wing, ORNL Cees de Laat, uVa Rene Hatem, Canarie Internet2 Staff- Guy Almes, Heather Boyles, Steve Corbato, Chris Heermann, Christian Todorov, Matt Zekauskas

4/30/2020 6

HOPI Resources

   

MPLS over Abilene 10G backbone Internet2 10G Wave on the NLR footprint MANLAN Experimental Facility

• Ethernet Switch – layer 2 switching • ONS Switch – layer 1 switching

The Regional Optical Networks – RONs

• Working on interface definition 4/30/2020 7

Abilene-NLR Overlay

4/30/2020 8

MANLAN Experimental Facility

 MANLAN Proper is an Ethernet Exchange Point for R&E Networks  Addition of Cisco 15454 to support projects such as the Global Lambda Integration Facility (GLIF)  Current IEEAF/Tyco Circuit between Surfnet and Abilene will be used for international experimentation  Connections • CA*net • • Abilene Surfnet  Some near term tests: Lightpath consisting of a variety of technologies crossing multiple administrative domains  There are many other experimental facilities – StarLight (including Starlight-CERN OC192 link with Layer 2 and 3 services), NetherLight, etc.

4/30/2020 9

Leading & Emerging

Regional Optical Initiatives

                 

California (CALREN) Colorado (FRGP/BRAN) Connecticut (Connecticut Education Network) Florida (Florida LambdaRail) Indiana (I-LIGHT) Illinois (I-WIRE) Maryland, D.C. & northern Virginia (MAX) Michigan Minnesota New York + New England region (NEREN) North Carolina (NC LambdaRail) Ohio (Third Frontier Network) Oregon Rhode Island (OSHEAN) SURA Crossroads (southeastern U.S.) Texas Utah Wisconsin

4/30/2020 10

HOPI Basic Service

 Probably a 1 GE end-to-end path with “reasonable” jitter and latency properties  Dynamically provisioned – understand degree to which temporal setup is needed  Understand topological extent – for example, host-to-host? Cluster-to-cluster?

 Examine Backbone, RON, Campus hierarchy – understand interface options  Network operations  Measurement activities 4/30/2020 11

HOPI Testbed – Potential Model

4/30/2020 12

Current Status

 Design team furiously working on definitions for: • Basic services model • HOPI node design • Connector interface • Control plane requirements • Management requirements  Target draft whitepaper for Spring (Apr) Internet2 Members meeting  Planned testbed(s) implementation this year.

4/30/2020 13

Conclusions

 Support • Internet2 goal is to support the bandwidth needs of the community as networking infrastructures evolve in the future through shared, high-performance packet networks and dedicated capabilities as required.

 More Information • http://abilene.internet2.edu

• http://abilene.internet2.edu/observatory • http://www.nationallambdarail.org

• http://www.fiberco.org

• A HOPI site to be announced in the near future • [email protected]

4/30/2020 14

4/30/2020 15