Internet2 UpdateEric Boyd

Deputy Technology Officer

October 20, 2008

Internet2 Strategic Plan

On July 8, 2008, the Internet2 Board adopted

the Internet2 Strategic Plan

Goals:• Support next generation of collaborative discovery

• Design, operate, and continually advance a leading-edge

research and education network as a national asset

• Transform communities through cyberinfrastructure

• Operate Internet2 as an exemplary membership organization

http://www.internet2.edu/strategicplanning/

Supporting Next Generation of Collaborative Discovery

• Research communities are increasingly

distributed across the globe

• A good deal of collaboration is done through

sharing large amounts of data via networks

• Science applications must operate in an

environment of multiple, heterogeneous

networks

Supporting Large-scale Distributed Sensor Networks• Ecology

• Seismology

• Meteorology

Access to Unique Scientific Instruments

• Astronomy

• High-Energy and Nuclear Physics

Hi-fidelity Collaboration• HD-quality video

• CD-quality audio

Tele-health

• Medical instruction

• Clinical practice

• Research

LHC / iHDTV Demo

Behind the Scenes:LHC / iHDTV Demo

Behind the Scenes: Distance Learning /

Ultragrid Demo

• Instrumentation

•Data Storage

•Networking

•Computation

•User support

•Policy and Funding

•Management Security and Access

Cyberinfrastructure: Defined

CI Encompasses Physical Assets, Information,

People, and Skills Working as a System

Instrumentation

Security

Control

DataGeneration

Computation

Analysis

Simulation

Program

Security

ManagementSecurity and

Access

AuthenticationAccessControl

Authorization

Researcher

ControlProgram

ViewingSecurity

3DImaging

Display andVisualization

.

DisplayTools Security

DataInput

CollabTools Publishing

HumanSupportHelp

Desk

Policy andFunding

ResourceProviders

FundingAgencies

Campuses

SearchData SetsStorage

Security

RetrievalInput

SchemaMetadata

DataDirectories

Ontologies

Archive

EducationAnd

Outreach

Network

Training

Cyberinfrastructure and the Internet2 Community

• Operating advance services by and for the

community

–e.g. Networks, Observatories, Federations

• Experimenting with developmental services

–e.g. Dynamic Circuits, Distributed Monitoring,

Hybrid Networking

• Adopting new technologies

–e.g. Workshops, Targeted Communities

• Partnering with like-minded organizations

Integrated Systems Approach

Middleware Infrastructure

• Focus:

• Inter-institutional collaboration

• Scalable authenticated/authorized access to remote resources

• Internet2 role:

• Defining/creating architecture: Shibboleth

• Tools to implement: Shibboleth, Grouper, Signet

• Infrastructure/Services to scale: InCommon, USHER

Shibboleth

• Lead universities: Brown, Ohio State, Univ of Washington, Duke, USC

•Adoption: more than 10,000 deployed sites; national federating software for more than 20 countries

•Commercial adoption: Microsoft, Google, Elsevier, OCLC, etc…

•Current uses: content acquisition, collaboration tools, access to federal applications, access to domain applications

Grouper

•Group management tool

• Lead institution – Univ of Chicago; other key players include Duke, Brown, Georgia Tech, Univ of Penn, Univ of Memphis, Univ of Newcastle

•Adoption accelerating (~15 operational deployments now) as versions add capabilities, GUI refines, performance improves

•Under consideration in some key commercial services

Comanage

•Collaboration management platform – externalize identity management from collaboration applications

•Supports collaborations, virtual organizations, enterprises. VO service centers, etc

• Lead institution Stanford, with MIT support

• Leverages Shib, Grouper, Signet

•Early versions, but adoption rapid – LIGO, OOI, campuses

perfSONAR• A collaboration

• Production network operators focused on designing and building tools that they will deploy and use on their networks to provide monitoring and diagnostic capabilities to themselves and their user communities.

• An architecture & a set of protocols

• Web Services Architecture

• Protocols based on the Open Grid Forum Network Measurement Working Group Schemas

• Several interoperable software implementations

• Java, Perl, Python…

• A Deployed Measurement infrastructure

Gmaps (pingER)

Dynamic Circuit Networking

• Provides short-term dedicated bandwidth

• Similar and complementary to IP (Internet Protocol) networking:

• Protocol-based connections

• Connect to anyone else on the network

• Supports high-bandwidth and real-time applications Being developed and deployed by a number of R&E networks

• More flexible (and potentially more cost-effective) than long-term dedicated circuits

Phoebus

• Phoebus is a framework and protocol to enable hybrid networking across high-performance networks

• Transparently splits end-to-end network path into distinct segments

• Minimizes the negative effects of high latency and packet loss on data transfer

• By localizing their effects

• By allocating dedicated resources to mitigate the issues

• Transparent adaptation for existing applications

• Perform well to nearest Phoebus Gateway and allow the system to do the rest

• No modification necessary for most applications

• Optimize the performance with a variety of techniques and insights into the state of the network

DC Network

End-to-EndSession

Phoebus-Enabled DC Network

Integrated Systems Approach

Integrated Systems Approach

•What does “Integrated” mean?•Interoperable•Widely Deployed•Community Best Practices•Extensible

•Observation: Building distributed systems that operate as a larger distributed system

Distributed System Design Goals

•Take existing scientific applications, without recompilation or awareness of circuits, e.g.• Bulk File Transfer

• Real Time

• Video

•Exploit performance possibilities of new networking technologies

•Preserve “current politics of business,” (don’t upset the apple cart)

• Improve efficiency of problem diagnosis (eliminate reliance on “old boy network”)

Distributed Systems for Networks

• To build next generation networks, we need distributed software systems on top of the network hardware• Session-Application (Session-Layer tools [e.g. Phoebus],

Community-specific abstraction applications [e.g. Lambda Station, Terapaths], true applications)

• Dynamic Circuit Networks (DCN, e.g. Internet2 DCN, ESnet SDN, GÉANT2 Autobahn)

• Performance Measurement Framework (e.g. perfSONAR)

• Information Services (IS)

• Discovery

• Topology

• Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA, e.g. Shibboleth, etc.)

Distributed System Requirements

•These distributed systems share common requirements:

• Heterogeneous network architecture

• Multiple administrative entities; no central authority

• Local customization of operational environment

• Applications driven by orthogonal virtual organizations

•Suggests parallel design approach

• Toolkit approach

• Web services / defined APIs

Multi-Layer Distributed System

•Design is “parallel” for each system

•Hierarchical dependency relationship

•Suggests abstracting common components, publication/polling architecture across boundaries

Federated Trust

Information Services

Performance Monitoring Framework

Control Plane Framework

Dependencies

Session-Application

Multi-Layer Distributed System

Session-Application

Control Plane FrameworkPerformance Monitoring

Information ServicesFederated

Trust

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 1

Hard

war

eSoftware/

Servers

•Design is “parallel” for each system

•Hierarchical dependency relationship

•Suggests abstracting common components, publication/polling architecture across boundaries

•Creates a common network abstraction toolkit to present to application

Scientific Application

Multi-Layer Distributed System

Session-Layer Abstraction

Control Plane FrameworkPerformance MonitoringInformation Services

Federated Trust

Layer 3

Layer 2

Layer 1

Hard

war

eSoftware/

Servers

•Design is “parallel” for each system

•Hierarchical dependency relationship

•Suggests abstracting common components, publication/polling architecture across boundaries

•Creates a common network abstraction toolkit to present to application

Scientific Application

Diagnostic Analysis and Visualization

Tools

Importance of Standards

• Note the importance of standards

• Between distributed software systems

• Between discipline community application and network abstraction toolkit

• Assumes standards-compatible components of network abstraction toolkit deployed across autonomous networks

• Suggests need for reference implementation(s)

Join the Effort:Community WGs

• Network Technical Advisory Committee

• Chair: Paul Schopis

• Dynamic Circuit WG

• Chair: Linda Winkler

• Information Services WG

• Chair: Martin Swany

• Performance WG

• Chair: Carla Hunt

• Transport WG

• Chairs: Chet Ruscyzk, Steve Senger

www.internet2.edu

eboyd@internet2.edu