Internet2 and Oregon Southeast Technology Consortium I2 Day May 9, 2001

1
Internet2 and OregonSoutheast Technology
Consortium I2 DayMay 9, 2001

• Joe St Sauver, Ph.D. (joe_at_oregon.uoregon.edu)
• Computing Center
• University of Oregon

2
Background and Introduction

• Im the Assistant Director for Academic User
  Services, here at the University of Oregon
  Computing Center in Eugene, and Id like to thank
  Bonnie Neas, Assistant VP for Federal Government
  Relations and Director of Internet Research at
  NDSU for inviting me to talk to you today.
  Hopefully the H.323 technology will work well,
  and hopefully I wont be called for jury duty. -)

3
What My Group and I Do

• I run a sort of unusual group here at the CC. In
  addition to supporting academic users of our
  large systems and microcomputers, my group and I
  also produce documentation, maintain the UO home
  page, run network service boxes (such as Usenet
  News servers, web cache boxes, ftp archive
  servers, video servers, etc), handle network
  abuse and policy issues... and we work on
  advanced networking issues, such as Internet2.

4
What Were Going to Cover Today

• The history of Oregon and Internet2
• Some technical areas were interested in and
  working on...
• And some opportunities for collaboration between
  Oregon and North Dakota.

5
A Brief History Of Internet2 in the State of
Oregon

• Or How in the world did UO end up
  collaborating with/doing/sponsoring all these
  Internet2-related things?

6
Long Long Ago (Back 1995), Before There Was
Internet2...

• Oregon had a nice statewide network, the Network
  for Education and Research in Oregon (NERO), with
  hub sites in Eugene, Corvallis and Portland,
  interconnected by OC3 (155 Mbps) and DS3 (45
  Mbps) circuits. A nice overview of the early
  days of NERO, written by Dave Meyer, the guy who
  built it, is available online athttp//sith.maoz.
  com/dmm/i2days/

7
NEROs Role

• NERO served as the production backbone for Oregon
  higher education, and also provided a platform
  for research on the network, and research via the
  network.
• It was one of the earliest statewide ATM networks
  (its now packet over sonet)
• It provided both intrastate connectivity and
  commodity Internet transit service via UUNet and
  MCI (now CWIX).

8
Oregon Internet Exchange

• Meyer also built out the Oregon Internet Exchange
  (OIX) at UO, a network meet point where ISPs
  could come to exchange customer network traffic
  without paying financial settlements, thereby
  keeping local traffic local and reducing
  bandwidth costs. See http//www.oregon-ix.net/
• Well talk about how the OIX fits into the larger
  I2-in-Oregon picture later in this talk

9
The Original vBNS

• In April of 1995, the vBNS became operational. It
  was originally deployed as a way of providing
  connectivity between federally funded
  supercomputing centers at Cornell, Pittsburgh,
  San Diego, NCAR and NCSA/UIUC, and the four NSF
  funded network access points. See, for
  examplehttp//www.vbns.net/presentations/krnet-
  tutorial/index.html

10
The Revised vBNS and the New Connections Program

• A presidential review committee looked at the
  original vBNS, and basically said, Great,
  world-class, network. Too bad no ones using it.
• Ergo, the impetus for the NSFs New Connections
  program, and expanded access.

11
The Original UO/OSU NSF New Connections
Application

• As part of his work with NERO, Dave Meyer, in
  conjunction with researchers from Oregon State
  University, applied for an NSF Connections Grant
  program grant in 1996. Approval would mean
  funding, plus eligibility to use the vBNS (very
  cool!)
• That proposal envisioned that UO and OSU would
  share a single vBNS DS3 (45Mbps), interconnecting
  the site via NERO.

12
We Won...

• Our application was approved by the NSF in
  December of 1996 (see http//www.fastlane.nsf.gov
  /servlet/showaward?award9617043).

13
And We Lost

• However the NSF decided, post hoc, that in fact a
  separate grant was needed for each school to be
  connected to the vBNS, even if we planned to
  share a common connection.
• UO and OSU jointly agreed that Oregon State would
  take the original grant money and the initial
  vBNS DS3 connection, and UO would reapply during
  the next round.

14
And Then We Lost Some More...

• We had expected the reapplication to be a
  relatively routine process and to only cause a
  short delay, but then funding for the NSF
  Connections Grants program got tangled up with
  the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund (the
  so-called DNS registration tax), and the NSF
  Connections Program was temporarily put on hold.

15
But Then We Finally Won (Again)

• Finally, in September of 1998, UO was approved to
  connect to the vBNS (seehttp//www.fastlane.nsf.
  gov/servlet/showaward?award9729628

16
Having FINALLY Won...

• ... we found the world a different place.
• The vBNS had basically priced itself out of the
  market, and Abilene was then the clear network of
  choice for new connectors.
• ATM had died the death it richly deserved.
• Gigapops (like hula hoops) were the big thing
  (everyone had to have one).

17
The Changing World (cont.)

• OC3 connectivity was suddenly affordable. In
  fact, changes in prices made it possible for us
  to get not one, but two Abilene OC3 connections.
  That multihoming gave us connection diversity and
  survivability. We believe that Oregon was the
  first multihomed site on Abilene.

18
But Even After We Got Approved, We Werent Done

• Our getting connected to Internet2 saga
  actually has many more twists and turns.
• For example, we almost lost our backhauled
  connections via the Qwest backbone when USWest
  was slow to deliver our OC3 local loops, and the
  Oregon Legislature wanted a NERO bandwidth audit
  (see https//web-vms.uoregon.edu/joe/bw2/owen/in
  dex.html)

19
Bottom Line Oregon Did Finally Get Connected

• But when all was said and done, we DID get
  connected. We ended up with the Oregon Gigapop
  (OGIG) providing connectivity for the University
  of Oregon via two Abilene OC3s connections, one
  to Denver and one to Sacramento (now Sunnyvale).
• It look us a while to get there, but we DID get
  there.

20
And By Having To Wait, We Ended Up Really Winning

• We ended up with 310 Mbps instead of 45
• We ended up with the Oregon Gigapop located in
  Eugene
• And by the time we got on Internet2, I2 was far
  more practically useful than it had been earlier
  (remember that the value of a network is
  proportional to the square of the number of
  entities it connects)

21
And We Made Some Good Friends While We Waited...

• For example, following a mandate from the state
  government that Oregon public telecommunications
  networks should be aggregated to the maximum
  extent possible, OPEN (the Oregon Public
  Education Network, the network serving public K12
  institutions in Oregon) joined NERO, and the
  Oregon state government agency network also
  joined NERO.

22
NTIA and K12

• It was also during this period that UO began
  working with K12 institutions in the south half
  of the state as part of an NTIA grant program
  (41-40-94029), creating Lane Education Net (LEN),
  which eventually got merged into OPEN when the
  networks consolidated.

23
And With That Background, The Stage Was Set...

• Institutions in the state had I2 connectivity
• Grant funding for those connections was only for
  a limited time tic, toc, tic, toc...
• We had a solid intrastate network connecting the
  state universities, K12 and state government
  (including providing commodity Internet for those
  partners)

24
The Stage Was Set (continued)

• Wed already been working with K12, both via OPEN
  and as part of the NTIA grant
• We had a commodity Internet exchange point
• There was a tremendous Internet2 public relations
  effort, generating a lot of institutional,
  governmental and public interest

25
Evolution 1 OSU Leaves The vBNS

• Along the way, Oregon State had gotten a
  supplemental grant to provide additional funding
  for their vBNS connection, but when that
  eventually ran out, we began tunneling their
  Internet2 traffic via NERO to the Oregon Gigapop.
• Now OSU pays for one of the two Oregon Gigapop
  OC3s outright.
• OSU represented OGIGs 2nd participant.

26
Evolution 2 PREN in Portland

• In August of 1999, a consortia of Portland area
  schools (PSU, OHSU and OGI), known collectively
  as PREN, applied for an NSF Connections Grant,
  proposing to connect PREN via donated WCI OC12
  connectivity backhauled to UWs gigapop in
  Seattle. PRENs application to the NSF was
  approved (http//www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/sho
  waward?award9975992)

27
And About The Portland Schools Going North...

• We wont BS you there was significant
  concern/angst/debate about the Portland schools
  decision to connect via Seattle, rather than via
  the Oregon Gigapop.
• At the same time, we completely understood that
  it would be very hard to turn down a free OC12.
• Besides, it wasnt an either/or situation, at
  least for Portland State.

28
Portland State Was In a Unique Position

• Like UO and OSU, PSU was a long time NERO partner
  and already had OC3 class intrastate
  connectivity.
• They could have connectivity via PREN and the UW
  gigapop in Seattle, but they could also have
  connectivity from the Oregon Gigapop via NERO.

29
Portland StateTurned Up Immediately...

• So, as soon as the NSF approved PSU for
  connection to Internet2, the Oregon Gigapop was
  immediately positioned to provide I2 connectivity
  for them, as we continue to do to this day.
• PSU thus became OGIGs third participant.

30
Evolution 3 The I2 Sponsored Participant Program

• Meanwhile, Internet2 had announced an interest in
  accommodating institutions (called sponsored
  participants), which didnt fit the traditional
  Internet2 profile (for instance, K12s,
  non-Carnegie Research 1/Research 2 schools,
  etc.).
• We were immediately intrigued.

31
We Submitted An Application for 3 Sponsored
Participants

• UO immediately submitted an application for
  three sponsored participants-- the Oregon
  University System colleges which werent yet
  Internet2 members,-- Oregons public K12 network
  (OPEN), (representing about 600K users), and
  -- Oregons state government agency network.

32
Onesie-Twosies vs. Groups

• Apparently our application for the three
  sponsored participants were something of a
  bombshell within Internet2, even though wed
  alerted I2 to our anticipated approach, and at
  least some Internet2 staff had said that they
  thought that that would be fine.
• Apparently Internet2 had been planning to handle
  sponsored participants on a onesie-twosie basis,
  rather than on a group basis.

33
Why Did We Apply To Sponsor Groups of Sites?

• We already worked with OPEN and the state
  government and the other state colleges as group
  entities. We didnt want to disaggregate them
  just for the purpose of applying for I2
  connectivity for them.
• We felt it was very important to respect existing
  organizational structures and existing network
  support structures.

34
Why Do Groups? (continued)

• We also felt that it would be a bad thing from an
  equity point of view to promote Internet2 to some
  Oregon K12 schools but not to others, or to
  promote it to some NERO partners, but not to
  others.
• There was no question that technically networks
  should interconnect at the Autonomous System
  level. Each of the three groups was an ASN-level
  entity.

35
Why Do Groups? (continued)

• There was also the issue that many K12 schools,
  at the school level, do not have the funds to
  provide on-site wide area network support staff,
  nor do they have the money to buy separate
  dedicated connections.
• Doing only some schools but not others would be
  confusing, and limit opportunities for
  collaboration, tech transfer, and self-support
  among Oregon schools

36
Why Do Groups? (continued)

• The paperwork burden would also be essentially
  the same for any of these -- all K12 schools in
  the state of Oregon, or-- a single educational
  service district, or-- a single school district,
  or-- a single school, or-- a single school
  building, SO...
• You clearly get the most bang for your buck by
  adding an entire K12 statewide network at a time

37
The Oregon University System Regional Universities

• While the sponsored participant program was
  getting sorted out within I2, Internet2 did agree
  to let us reapply to sponsor four individual
  colleges -- Eastern Oregon University, Oregon
  Institute of Technology, Southern Oregon
  University and Western Oregon University -- on a
  onesie-twosie basis. They were approved and
  hooked up to the Oregon Gigapop via NERO.

38
What About K12? Tah Dah...Sponsored Groups (SEGP)

• After much process and discussion, Internet2
  decided to allow connection of state K12 networks
  as Sponsored Educational Group Participants
  (SEGPs).
• Oregons statewide K12 network, OPEN, was one of
  the first five approved (along with Michigan,
  Missouri, Virginia and Washington State). We are
  currently completing OPENs SEGP paperwork.

39
Interesting SEGPisms...

• New fee (30K 2K of US Reps)
• SEGPs cant include Carnegie Doctoral Research
  Extensive (old R1/R2) schools, nor former
  members of Internet2
• Internet2 cant be used to provide intrastate
  connectivity for SEGP institutions (e.g., no
  competition with state backbone networks)
• Each SEGP must have its own ASN
• No new PVCs or BGP peerings for Abilene

40
Who In Oregon Is Still Not At the Oregon Gigapop?

• The smaller private liberal arts colleges in the
  state arent connected to I2 or to NERO
• Oregon community colleges arent part of NERO,
  and hence we dont have a clean way of bringing
  them in as a group.
• State government, while part of NERO, still isnt
  eligible for connection to Internet2.
• County and municipal governments.

41
About the Smaller Private Liberal Arts
Colleges...

• Currently the focus of the latest NSF connections
  funding program (NSF 01-73)
• The tricky part is doing the local loops or
  intrastate network to get them connected, and the
  money available (150K/biennium) may not be
  enough, particularly when you figure in the
  likely need for capital investments in hardware
  for each school

42
Oregons Community Colleges

• Tough to partner with them as a group because
  they have traditionally purchased commodity
  Internet connectivity directly from commercial
  network service providers there is no existing
  intrastate community college network per se
• Some are in geographically challenging locations
  (e.g., Treasure Valley CC in Ontario, Oregon,
  near the Idaho border)

43
What About State Government?

• State government was denied participation
  outright (truly unfortunate, given resources like
  the state library, state museums, and various
  research labs), but cest la vie.
• State government COULD be a real ally when it
  comes to leveraging assets and providing funding
• An odd disconnect has the potential to occur

44
County and Local Government

• County and local government agencies arent on
  anyones radar right now, but they should be.
  Why?
• Who owns all that right of way that fiber
  companies need? Yep, the cities and counties do.
  Who owns all that right of way that maybe YOUD
  like to use for your own fiber? Yep, the cities
  and counties do.
• You ignore/forget about your friends in county
  and local govt at your peril.

45
County and Local Government and Oregon Fiber...

• http//www.teleport.com/samc/telecom/index6.html
  
• http//www.ruralfiber.net/
• http//www.bpa.gov/Corporate/KCC/conferences/fibe
  r/agenda.htm
• And for a brief tutorial introduction to fiber
  http//cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/summer2000/cnsum2000.
  pdf at page 18.

46
Why Did We Bother Telling You This I2 Oral
History?

• It explains, in part, why we work so hard to
  share what weve been able to build.
• It may give you hope while it hasnt been easy
  getting folks connected in Oregon, we HAVE made
  progress, and you can, too.
• It may help you to understand some of what we do,
  have done, and will do. (It also clearly shows
  that were not done yet.)

47
Some Technical Areas Were Currently Working On

• How did you pick areas to work on? We tried
  everything, and dropped the stuff that seemed not
  to work very well.

48
Some Examples of Areas Were Currently Working On

• IP Multicast (including SSM)
• IPv6
• End to End Performance
• Network Measurement
• Usenet News
• Less-Than-Best Effort Service
• I2 Traffic and Commodity Internet Traffic
• Routing Issues

49
IP Multicast

• While most Internet traffic is normal IPv4
  unicast traffic, with bits getting sent from one
  sender to one receiver, there is an additional
  type of traffic called IP multicast.
• IP multicast allows traffic to be efficiently
  shared among multiple receivers, if your network
  is configured to support it (as Abilene does, and
  as your campus can...).

50
Why Is IP Multicast Important?

• IP multicast is important, for example, because
  it allows institutions to deliver high quality
  (640x480x30 frames per second) MPEG1 video at 1
  to 1.5Mbps to large audiences without crushing
  the network -- one viewer or ten thousand, the
  load is the same.
• It just looks like TV on my computer!

51
The Downsides to IP Multicast

• High bit rate content (1-1.5Mbps) is still too
  fast for off-campus users dialup, cable modem
  and DSL users need not apply (but 1-1.5 Mbps is
  not an issue on-campus)
• IP multicast deployment has developed an
  undeserved reputation for being hard
• Because there arent many viewers, there isnt
  much content because there isnt much content,
  there arent many viewers. (But were working on
  fixing that.)

52
What Can I See Via IP Multicast Today?

• We currently offer a variety of MPEG1 content
  across Abilene and the commodity Internet
  today.See, for examplehttp//cc.uoregon.edu/cn
  ews/spring2001/spring2001.pdf (pps. 4 and 13)
  and see http//videolab.uoregon.edu/

53
SSM (Single Source Multicast)

• SSM is important because it makes it possible to
  cleanly integrate multicast content into web
  pages, removing issues associated with sdr and
  sap.
• SSM requires IGMP v3, which means that deployment
  is going to be a gradual (rather than overnight)
  phenomena, but it only requires IGMP3 on the last
  hop router. See ftp//ftpeng.cisco.com/ipmulticas
  t/ssm/index.html

54
For More Information About IP Multicast

• An excellent starting point for training
  technical folks about IP multicast is the Cisco
  IP multicast training materials available online
  atftp//ftpeng.cisco.com/ipmulticast/training/
  index.html

55
IPv6

• Another important area that is beginning to get
  more press (now that IP multicast has become
  more-or-less a routine item on Abilene) is IPv6.
• IPv6 is designed to preclude the possibility of
  address space exhaustion by replacing current 32
  bit IPv4 addresses with 128 bit addresses. It is
  already quite popular in parts of Asia, where
  addresses are scarce.

56
How Does IPv6 Fit Within I2?

• IPv6, like IP multicast, is an excellent example
  of an advanced network service, literally a next
  generation network, which is supported over
  Internet2.
• And, just like IP multicast, while IPv6 can be
  done without Internet2, having Internet2
  available makes it far easier to begin
  experimenting with IPv6.

57
IPv6 Action Items

• If youre interested in pursuing IPv6, the
  laundry list to begin working on includes--
  arrange for tunneled IPv6 connectivity-- arrange
  for temporary IPv6 address space-- get local DNS
  service in shape to handle AAAA IPv6 address
  records-- get host operating systems
  IPv6-ified-- get applications IPv6-ified--
  spread the word to your friends. -)

58
For More Information About IPv6

• See http//cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/spring2001/spring
  2001.pdf at pages 13 to 16.

59
End-to-End Performance

• Currently, while all I2 sites have large pipes,
  individual users on typical systems have a hard
  time obtaining more than three to six Mbps
  transfer rates due to a variety of factors, which
  frustrates users. Most users have an expectation
  that if (a) their institution has a large pipe to
  I2, and (b) they have fast ethernet to their
  desktop, then they should naturally be able to go
  fast.

60
But In Fact Utilization of I2 Connections Can
Often Be Low

• This has motivated an Internet2 End-to-End
  performance initiative, aimed at improving single
  stream end-to-end throughput
• Put plainly, I2 needs to figure a way to help
  users at Internet2 schools use their large
  connections more effectively. If pipes stay
  largely idle, Internet2 will have a real problem.

61
For More Information on E2E...

• http//www.internet2.edu/e2e/
• http//www.internet2.edu/e2e/planningmeeting.shtm
  l (including aonepager I wrote)
• http//darkwing.uoregon.edu/joe/how-to-go-fast.p
  pt

62
Measurement

• Another important area is that of network
  performance measurement
• Oregon participates in a number of measurement
  projects, including NLANRs AMP project,
  Advanced.Orgs Surveyor project, Vern Paxsons
  NIMI project, CAIDAs Skitter project (were the
  only higher ed institution in North America to
  host a Skitter box), etc.

63
Why Is Measurement Important?

• Achieving sustained high throughput requires a
  virtually lossless network, and you need to be
  able to isolate and identify any network problems
  which arise
• Because Internet2 crosses organizational domains
  and uses a variety of network technologies,
  changes (for better or worse) happen all the
  time.

64
Nice Overview of Measurement Initiatives

• A nice overview of Internet measurement tools is
  available from CAIDA at http//www.caida.org/tools
  /taxonomy/
• Every site should consider participating in one
  or more measurement initiatives, if at all
  possible. In most cases, it is relatively easy
  to host a measurement box, with the worst hassles
  often associated with getting a GPS antenna onto
  a roof for time syncing.

65
Route Views

• The University of Oregon also provide a route
  viewer, with views of the Internet BGP routing
  table from fifty different network service
  provider/location combinations. See
  http//www.antc.uoregon.edu/route-views/ and
  http//rv-archive.uoregon.edu/

66
Usenet News

• Another area where UO has been very active on
  Internet2 has been in the area of Usenet News.
  Usenet News is both a traditional production
  network service of some importance, and also a
  service that is extremely well suited to
  Internet2s unique architecture.
• We currently do Usenet News feeds with virtually
  all I2 schools that do Usenet News.

67
Usenet News Traffic Volume

• Usenet News has also been identified as a major
  application in terms of Internet2 traffic
  volumes seehttp//darkwing.uoregon.edu/joe/ho
  w-to-go-fast.ppt at pages 14-15, 38-40.
• Shifting that traffic from commodity Internet
  connections to I2 connections represents a real
  savings for institutions.

68
Weather Data Via Usenet News

• We also have been working with NCAR/UCAR to see
  if Usenet News is adaptable to transportation of
  LDM weather data files see, for
  examplehttp//www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/anne/
  nntpReport.html

69
IPv6, Multicast and Usenet

• Usenet News also provides a nice vehicle for
  testing IP multicast data delivery (see
  http//www.newscaster.org/) and a nice
  foundation tenant application for IPv6
  connections.

70
Best Effort Service vs. Other...

• The current model of undifferentiated delivery of
  all types of network traffic (email, web pages,
  IP video, voice over IP, etc.) is called best
  effort service.
• There has been substantial interest in offering a
  better than best-efforts service, a so-called
  premium delivery service (ala Fedex for package
  service) via Quality of Service (QoS) mechanism.

71
Problems That the QoS Premium Service Has Run
Into

• So far, it has proven to be impractical to
  implement premium service via QoS for
  inter-domain network traffic, because- theres
  no way to police the edges of the net to block
  unauthorized premium traffic- the network is
  currently uncongested, so theres no need for
  differentiated service- doing bandwidth
  reservations, doing user authentication, and
  doing billing is a pain

72
Less-Than-Best-EffortsScavenger Service

• Along the way, some Internet2 folks have
  considered offering a less-than-best effort
  service, a scavenger service, that would be the
  antithesis of premium service, targeted at
  delay-insensitive or low-priority traffic. See
  http//qbone.internet2.edu/qbss
• It is still an open question whether that effort
  will result in a usable/used service

73
Issues for Scavenger Service

• The network core is uncongested, so the
  motivation for deprioritizing traffic is?
• Scavenger service is only available for I2, but
  where it may be really needed is on the commodity
  Internet
• Unclear how traffic would be selected for marking
  with the SS code point, and how the marking would
  actually occur.

74
Speaking of Traffic Management

• We have also been interested in the relationship
  between Internet2 and commodity Internet traffic
  for some time.
• We have postulated that most users wont be able
  to routinely ascertain when they are using I2 and
  when they arent, so if you encourage users to go
  fast anywhere, you need to support them going
  fast everywhere.

75
Why Is Going Fast Everywhere Potentially a Big
Deal?

• While high bandwidth connections to Internet2 are
  relatively inexpensive (no, really, they are, at
  least by comparison!), commodity Internet
  connections continue to be an order of magnitude
  more expensive (e.g., you might pay a 110K per
  YEAR for an Abilene OC3, but 100K per MONTH for
  a commodity OC3 from a major network service
  provider).

76
And Thats Why Exchange Points Become Important...

• Remember we mentioned the Oregon Internet
  Exchange earlier -- this is where you begin to
  see the crucial role it will play for Oregon --
  the Oregon IX will allow us to minimize the
  amount of commodity Internet transit bandwidth we
  need to purchase, substituting inexpensive
  peering for at least some network destinations.

77
And Exchange Point Issues Motivate Fiber
Initiatives

• Unfortunately, running an exchange point in
  Eugene is harder than running an exchange point
  in Portland (which is still harder than running
  an exchange point in Palo Alto, say,) simply
  because there are fewer providers available to
  peer with in Eugene...
• QED, eventually you need to get inexpensive
  connectivity to larger cities to continue to
  add network peers.

78
Route Asymetry

• Weve also been interested in the issue of route
  asymetry. Routing asymetry arises when traffic
  goes out via Internet2, but comes back via a
  non-Internet2 network connection (or vice versa).
  In some cases the asymetry is intentional and due
  to differences in connection costs or connection
  capacity in other cases it is just a matter of
  routing being broken.

79
A Hypothetical Example of Routing Asymetry

• Assume we have three possible paths from us to
  Oregon Graduate Institute in Portland (i) via I2
  (Eugene down to Sunnyvale, back up to Seattle,
  down to Portland) (ii) via peerage with Verio at
  the Oregon IX (virtually direct, and traffic
  carried at no cost to us) or (iii) via the
  commodity Internet. Which is the right or
  best path for that traffic to take?

80
Thinking About the Available Paths

• If we pref traffic to OGI to go via the Oregon
  IX, it would go to OGI via a direct route, at no
  cost to us and with low latency (and low latency
  gt faster throughput).
• But what if OGI is a customer (e.g., buys
  commodity transit) from Verio, and hence would
  prefer its traffic from us to go to via its
  lightly loaded I2 connection, even if that
  traffic follows a less-direct path?

81
Why Not Just Always Take the I2 Path, If It Is
Available?

• Taking the I2 path by default is sometimes
  inefficient at best. For example, consider UO to
  Portland State, both I2 member schools, AND both
  connected to NERO. Should we REALLY be preferring
  the I2 path between those schools to the direct
  path over our intrastate network, NERO? No, of
  course not, that makes no sense.

82
Nice Routing AsymetryStudy By Hank Nussbacher

• See The Asymmetry of Internet-2http//www.int
  ernet-2.org.il/i2-asymmetry/index.html

83
Opportunities For Collaboration

• Collaboration is, in general, a whole lot easier
  today than it was during WW II. For example, now
  you dont get shot just because youre a
  collaborator.

84
A Fundamental Truth

• Networks are only useful when they connect
  somewhere you need to go. In most cases, the
  places you need to go are where your friends are
• But what if I dont know anyone anywhere else in
  Internet2 to work with?

85
Joes Matchmaking Service

• For better or worse, one of the things that has
  resulted from our work with Internet2 is that we
  know folks all over the place.
• Ill try, to the extent Im able, to help get you
  connected with folks at other sites who might be
  interested in working on network projects of
  common interest. Send me email with information
  about a project youre interested in pursuing,
  and Ill try to help.

86
Internet2 Working Groups

• Another good way to meet colleagues in Internet2
  is via I2 working groups. Most of the working
  groups do business via email mailing lists, plus
  periodic working group meetings at I2 member
  meetings or NLANR/I2 Joint Tech meetings. For
  more information, seehttp//www.internet2.edu/ht
  ml/working-groups.html

87
And If All Else Fails...

• Were always glad to work directly with folks on
  projects in cases where no one else may be
  interested.
• Were crazy guys, but we generally have a lot of
  fun.

88
But What If We Dont Have A Project In Mind?

• Maybe consider one of the areas outlined in
  section two of this talk?
• How about doing something with H.323 video, as
  used for this presentation?
• Maybe looking at peer-to-peer applications would
  be of interest?
• Voice over IP?
• Security?

89
A Couple of Concluding Thoughts...

• Internet2 is a tremendous resource, and you CAN
  work successfully with it. You may need to be
  persistent, but you can prevail.
• There are lots of interesting projects going on
  in Internet2, including many areas where you can
  get involved.
• Wed be glad to work with you, or to help you to
  make connections if we can do so.
• Thanks for the chance to talk to you today!