Transcript Quantifying the Digital Divide Prepared by Les Cottrell, SLAC for the Internet2/World Bank meeting , Feb 7,www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk05/world-bank-feb05.ppt.

Quantifying the Digital Divide
Prepared by Les Cottrell, SLAC
for the Internet2/World Bank meeting , Feb 7,
2005
www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk05/world-bank-feb05.ppt
1
Goal
• Measure the network performance for developing regions
– From developed to developing & vice versa
– Between developing regions & within developing regions
• Use simple tool (PingER/ping)
– Ping installed on all modern hosts, low traffic interference,
• Provides very useful measures
• Originated in High Energy Physics, now focused on DD
• Persistent (data goes back to 1995), interesting history
PingER coverage
Jan 2005
Monitoring site
Remote site
2
C. Asia, Russia, S.E. Europe,
L. America, M. East, China: 45 yrs behind
World View
S.E. Europe, Russia: catching up
Latin Am., Mid East, China: keeping up India, Africa: 7 yrs behind
India, Africa: falling behind
TCP throughput measured from N.
America to World Regions
C. Asia (8)
Latin America (37)
50% Improvement/year
~ factor of 10 in < 6 years
10000
Edu (141)
1000
1000
Europe(150)
Canada (27)
100
100
Mid East (16)
S.E.
Europe (21)
10
10
Many institutes in developing world have less performance than a
household in N. America or Europe
Caucasus (8)
Dec-04
Dec-03
1
Dec-02
Dec-01
Africa (30)
Dec-00
India(7)
Dec-99
Dec-97
Jan-95
Dec-96
Russia(17)
1
Dec-98
China (13)
Jan-96
Important
for policy
makers
Derived TCP throughput in
KBytes/sec
10000
From the PingER project, Aug 2004
3
Loss to world from US
Loss Rate
< 0.1 to 1 %
1 to 2.5 %
2.5 to 5 %
5 to 12 %
> 12 %
2001
Dec-2003
 In 2001 <20% of
 BUT by December 2003
the world’s
It had improved to 77%
population had
Good or
Acceptable Loss
performance
4
Loss to Africa (example
of variability)
5
From Developing Regions
Africa
Balkans
Europe
N. America
S. America
TCP throughput from Novosibirsk to world regions
Novosibirsk
Novosibirsk
Derived throughput in Knits/s
10000
N. America
Australasia
E. Asia
M. East
Russia
S. Asia
big loss increase to Moscow (from < 1% to 2-3%)
Moscow
Japan/China
1000
NSK to Moscow used to be
OK but loss went up in Sep.
2003
GLORIAD may help
100
10
1
Sep-02
Dec-02
Mar-03
Jun-03
Oct-03
Jan-04
Apr-04
Aug-04
Derived TCP throughput KBytes/s
TCP throughput measured from Brazil to World Regions
10000
Brazil (Sao Paolo)
Latin America
Europe
1000
N. America
100
10
Jan-04
Africa
Russia
Feb-04
E. Asia
S. America
Mar-04
Apr-04
Europe
S. Asia
May-04
Jun-04
N. America
Jul-04
Aug-04
As expected Brazil to L. America
is good
Actually dominated by Brazil to
Brazil
To Chile & Uruguay poor since
6
goes via US
Within Developing
Regions
• In ’80s many Eu countries connected via US
• Today often communications within developing
regions to go via developed region, e.g.
– Rio to Sao Paola goes directly within Brazil
– But Rio to Buenos Aires goes via Florida
• And…
–NIIT – NSC (Rawalpindi – Islamabad) few miles apart,
•Route goes via England!!!!
•Takes longer to go few miles than to SLAC!
• Doubles international link traffic, increases
delays, increases dependence on others
• Within a region can be big differences between
7
sites/countries, due to service providers
Compare with TAI
• UN Technology Achievement Index (TAI)
8
Collaborations/funding
• Good news:
– Active collaboration with NIIT Pakistan to develop network
monitoring including PingER
• Travel funded by US State department for 1 year
– FNAL & SLAC continue support for PingER management
and coordination
• Bad news (currently unfunded, could disappear):
– DoE funding for PingER terminated
– Proposal to EC 6th framework with ICTP, ICT Cambridge UK,
CONAE Argentina, Usikov Inst Ukraine, STAC Vietnam VUB
Belgium rejected
– Proposal to IDRC/Canada February rejected
• Hard to get funding for operational needs (~0.3 FTE)
– For quality data need constant vigilance (host disappear,
security blocks pings, need to update remote host lists …)9
Summary
• Performance from U.S. & Europe is improving
all over
• Performance to developed countries are orders
of magnitude better than to developing
countries
• Poorer regions 5-10 years behind
• Poorest regions Africa, Caucasus, Central & S.
Asia
• Some regions are:
– catching up (SE Europe, Russia),
– keeping up (Latin America, Mid East, China),
– falling further behind (e.g. India, Africa)
10
Further Information
• PingER project home site
– http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/
• PingER methodology (presented at I2 Apr 22 ’04)
– http://www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/i2-methodapr04.ppt
• ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report
– http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paperjan05/20050206-netmon.doc
• ICFA/SCIC home site
– http://icfa-scic.web.cern.ch/ICFA-SCIC/
11
Extra slides
12
Countries covered
• Sites in 114 countries are monitored
• Goal to have 2 sites/country
– Reduce anomalies
• Orange countries are in developing regions and have only one site
• Megenta no longer have a monitored site (pings blocked)
13
View from CERN
• Confirms view from N. America
Derived TCP throughput Kbits/s
100000
TCP throughput from CERN to World
Regions
10000
Europe
1000
SE Europe
N America
M East
India
100
L America
RussiaChina
10
Africa
From the PingER project August 2004.
1
Feb-98
Jun-99
Oct-00
Mar-02
Jul-03
14
Dec-04
Another view of Improvements
• Increase in fraction of good sites
15