Slide1: ICFA SCIC: Networks for HEP Status Report Harvey B. Newman California Institute of Technology ICFA Meeting, FNAL August 15, 2003


ICFA SCIC in 2002-3A Period of Intense Activity: ICFA SCIC in 2002-3 A Period of Intense Activity Formed WGs in March 2002; 11 Meetings in 18 Months Strong Focus on the Digital Divide Continuing Presentations at Meetings and Workshops (e.g. LISHEP, APAN, AMPATH, ICFA Seminar, CHEP2003) HENP more visible to US Agencies and Other governments: involved in the WSIS Process Five Reports; Presented to ICFA Feb. 13, 2003 See http://cern.ch/icfa-scic Main Report: “Networking for HENP” [H. Newman et al.] Monitoring WG Report [L. Cottrell] Advanced Technologies WG Report [R. Hughes-Jones, O. Martin et al.] Digital Divide Report [A. Santoro et al.] Digital Divide in Russia Report [V. Ilyin]


HENP Networks: Status and Outlook: SCIC Report 2003 General Conclusions: HENP Networks: Status and Outlook: SCIC Report 2003 General Conclusions The scale and capability of networks, their pervasiveness and range of applications in everyday life, and HENP’s dependence on networks for its research, are all increasing rapidly. However, as the pace of network advances continues to accelerate, the gap between the economically “favored” regions and the rest of the world is in danger of widening. We must therefore work to Close the Digital Divide To make Physicists from All World Regions Full Partners in Their Experiments; and in the Process of Discovery This is essential for the health of our global experimental collaborations, our plans for future projects, and our field.


SCIC Status Report:August 15, 2003 (1): SCIC Status Report: August 15, 2003 (1) Two SCIC Meetings (with VRVS): May 27 at Caltech; July 11 at CERN Next Meeting in September Networks Continue to Advance Rapidly in Most Favored Regions [US, EU,JP] Advanced R&D: Protocols, Methods, Technology: HEP Records; Mass Market Trends HEP Network “Records”: US + CERN The Move to Optical Networking: Dark Fiber or Wavelength Services; Local, National and Transoceanic Initiatives Mainstream Progress at the HEP Labs: Moving to Multi-Gbps There are Also Some Delays; Perhaps the Result of Hard Times Future Price Evolution May be Less Favorable than the Last 3 Years In Less Favored Regions Progress is More Difficult (in Hard Times): Russia, China, Brazil; India and Pakistan; Africa Monitoring (IEPM at SLAC): Quantifying the Digital Divide Very Important Work: Towards Tracking All World Regions, including SE Europe, SE Asia, FSU Republics Funding Runs Out in 2003; Seeking New Sources [ICFA HELP]


SCIC Status Report:August 15, 2003 (2): SCIC Status Report: August 15, 2003 (2) Perspectives on the Digital Divide Brazil: Digital Exclusion Report Serenate (www.serenate.org) 2003 Report on Europe IPEM: Extending the Reach; Correlate with NRI and Other Indices CHEPREO Project (AMPATH, Florida Universities, Caltech, UERJ Rio): Start of SCIC Digital Divide Website this Fall Events This Fall and Winter on Networking & the Digital Divide Oct. 12-18 Telecom World 2003/Internet2 Members’ Meeting, Geneva/Indianapolis Oct. 23-24 Quantifying the Digital Divide Round Table, ICTP Trieste Nov. 15-21 SuperComputing 2003, Phoenix Dec. 8-9 Role of Science in the Information Society, CERN Dec. 10-12 World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva Feb. 16-20 Digital Divide and Grid Workshop, Rio de Janeiro Planning 2003 Reports for the February 2004 ICFA Meeting General Update and Perspective; Digital Divide; Monitoring; Advanced Technologies (Preliminary Report in 2003)


Advanced Network Progress in the US, Europe, Japan: Advanced Network Progress in the US, Europe, Japan Optical R&D Nets Using Wavelengths and DWDM Netherlight, StarLight/TransLight(NL), UKLight, LHCNet [Optical Triangle wil Become a Quadrangle] HEP Network “Land Speed Records”: US-CERN [IPv4 and IPv6] GEANT Accepts Net Connections at 10Gbps Optical Net Projects: Proposed to the EU [GARDEN, GRANDE], and to the US Agencies: NSF: UltraLight (ultralight.caltech.edu) US National Projects: National Lambda Rail (Dark Fibers) and USAWaves (Wavelengths, Especially in the Southeast) Nearing Startup Also Optical Network Roadmap Being Proposed to DOE A New Rapid Cycle: Research to Development to Production Metro Dark Fiber Projects: FNAL to Starlight; SLAC to Abilene & ESnet Ethernet Becoming Cheaper, More Ubiquitous Moving To Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) and 10 GbE Across Wide Area Nets GbE switches to connect clusters at and below $ 100 per port; a GbE port on many or most new PCs


Internet 2 & CENIC Records: Internet 2 & CENIC Records (1) Internet 2 Land Speed Records IPv4 Class (February 2003) (2) Internet 2 Land speed record IPv6 class (May 2003) On May 2, Caltech and CERN set new Internet2 Land Speed Records using next generation Internet Protocols (IPv6) by achieving 983 megabits-per-second with a single IPv6 stream for more than an hour across a distance of 7,067 kilometers from Geneva to Chicago. (3) CENIC Award (8.6 Gbps over 4000 km in 10 streams w/FAST TCP, 11/02) The Biggest, Fastest in the West Award honors the fastest and most scalable high-performance network application/technology 1 TB over 10 kkm in <1 Hour 2.38 Gbps Geneva-Sunnyvale: 10’037Km


HENP Major Links: Bandwidth Roadmap (in Gbps): HENP Major Links: Bandwidth Roadmap (in Gbps) Continuing the Trend: ~1000 Times Bandwidth Growth Per Decade; Grids Will Become More Dynamic


UltraLight Collaboration:http://ultralight.caltech.edu: First Integrated packet switched and circuit switched hybrid experimental research network; leveraging transoceanic R&D network partnerships NLR Wave: 10 GbE (LAN-PHY) wave across the US; (G)MPLS managed Optical paths transatlantic; extensions to Japan, Taiwan, Brazil End-to-end monitoring; Realtime tracking and optimization; Dynamic bandwidth provisioning, Agent-based services spanning all layers of the system, from the optical cross-connects to the applications. UltraLight Collaboration: http://ultralight.caltech.edu Caltech, UF, FIU, UMich, SLAC,FNAL, MIT/Haystack, CERN, UERJ(Rio), NLR, CENIC, UCAID, Translight, UKLight, Netherlight, UvA, UCLondon, KEK, Taiwan Cisco, Level(3)


ICFA SCIC: R&E Backbone and International Link Progress: ICFA SCIC: R&E Backbone and International Link Progress GEANT Pan-European (10G) Backbone (http://www.dante.net/geant) Accepting 10 G Connects at Same Price as 2.5G: First Italy, then Switzerland (Including CERN: 10 GbE Connection by end 2003) Then Including (Surprisingly) Hungary, Poland CERN: Total Connectivity 25 Gbps in 2003; Going to ~40 Gbps in 2004 UK: UKLight Approved; Will Join with NetherLight(NL), TransLight (US), DataTAG (EU+US) to Form Optical Quadrangle EU 6th Framework Proposals: Including CERN, DANTE GARDEN: Led by Cisco, IPv6, Gbps Firewalls and Accounting GRANDE: Optical Links Donated by T-Systems (former Deutsche Telekom) SuperSINET (Japan): 10 Gbps IP and 10 Gbps Wavelength Core Tokyo to NY Links now at 2 X 2.5 Gbps; Move to Shared 10GbE by First Quarter 2004; Peer with Abilene, ESnet and GEANT et al. at NY  France (IN2P3): 2.5 Gbps RENATER3 backbone Since October 2002 Lyon-CERN Link at 1 Gbps (Ethernet) May be Moved to Higher Speed Link to Paris (RENATER); if Path to CERN 10G Link to GEANT Works Well CA*net4 (Canada): Canada-CERN Testbed of 6 Sites for Terabyte-Scale Data Transfers (Disk to Disk) Planned Connect to CERN Using Gigabit Ethernet (No Routers); 10GbE Later


Slide11: Till 2002.12 Since 2003.1 SuperSINET/SINET Gèant Abilene ESnet ISP KDDInet OC3 x 5 75Mbps x 3 75Mbps 75Mbps 75Mbps NORDUnet SuperSINET/SINET NII’s router at NewYork 2.5 Gbps x 2 Gèant Abilene ESnet CAnet SURFnet OC48 OC48 GbE GbE GbE GbE GbE ISP Verio [to 10Gbps 1Q 2004] (750Mbps) ATM switch （Peering with Esnet Done This March; and with Gèant in May Links from Japan to the US and EU Y. Karita, KEK


US Backbone and Int’l Links: Rapid Progress; Also Some Delays: US Backbone and Int’l Links: Rapid Progress; Also Some Delays Abilene (Internet2): Upgrade to 10 Gbps Complete Began Test Program with FAST to encourage high throughput use SLAC + IN2P3 (BaBar): OC12 Connection to ESnet and Abilene Typical throughput on Renater and US-CERN links to 300 Mbps Dark Fiber Plan to Sunnyvale for high speed connects to both ESnet and Abilene FNAL: Plans for dark fiber to STARLIGHT proceeding  US-CERN Link (USLIC + DataTAG): Upgrade 0.6G + 2.5 G to One 10G Link for Combined R&D + Production Service in September ESnet: DOE Network Workshop  New Roadmap Being Proposed Research, High Impact & Production Nets To 40Gbps in High Impact Net by 2008 Unified Management: to Encourage R to D to Production Cycle US National Lambda Rail: Dark Fiber Across the US Startup of Four 10 Gbps Waves by End 2003 or Early in 2004 Additional Waves at Cost to US Academic and Research Community IEEAF: Working on Donations for Research and Education; HEP TransPacific Expected in Mid-2003: Delayed by Equipment Donations 7000 km Fiber-pair Donation in Europe


Main Internet connections at CERN: Main Internet connections at CERN SWITCH CIXP WHO Europe USA CERN 1Gbps 1Gbps USLIC 622Mbps Swiss National Research Network Mission Oriented & World Health Org. General purpose A&R and commodity Internet connections (Europe/USA/World) Commercial IN2P3 45Mbps 1Gbps GEANT (1.25/2.5Gbps 10Gbps) 2.5Gbps DataTAG 2.5Gbps Network Research NetherLight ATRIUM/VTHD 2.5Gbps 10Gbps From ~25G (2003) To ~40G (2004)


FNAL Tier1 Connectivity w/ StarLight: FNAL Tier1 Connectivity w/ StarLight Caltech PoP US CMS should ensure that FNAL has a networking plan that meets CMS’ needs as a function of time from DC04 to LHC turn-on, in the presence of other FNAL demands Offsite data transfer requirements have consistently outpaced the available bandwidth Upgrade by ESnet to OC12 (12/02) becoming saturated already FNAL is planning to obtain an optical fiber connection to Starlight in Chicago Initially 4 GbE Links on 2 Wavelengths Capable of 66 10Gbps Wavelengths if fully instrumented” 2.5G Dark Fiber


ICFA SCIC: Russia’s International Network Progress & Issues: ICFA SCIC: Russia’s International Network Progress & Issues Russia: 622 Mbps Link Moscow to Stockholm Moscow-Starlight Link at 155 Mbps Working Well (Russia+NSF); Moscow-GEANT Link Soon; Also 155 Mbps Internet Access Moscow Institutes Have Good Connectivity: 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps Connections to Moscow of Key Institutes in Russia Progressing Dubna at 45 Mbps; Prospect to Go to 1 Gbps St. Petersburg (Gatchina) Preparing a 20-34 Mbps Link for the Fall Protvino-Moscow 8 Mbps; hope to go to 100 Mbps in Autumn Novosibirsk few Mbps Now; hope to go to 20-34 Mbps soon Connections for rest of Russia are poor; Hope for GLORIAD Project US-China-Russia Optical Ring (see cern.ch/icfa-scic Documents) Led by Prof. Velikhov in Russia; IHEP Beijing; NCSA in US Funding negotiations well advanced in Russia, China US NSF Proposal Required; this Year Apply to New “CyberInfrastructure” Program: NCSA (Illinois) with Caltech, U. Florida and others V. Ilyin, MSU


Slide16: APAN-TW Asian Research Network Connectivity (Early 2003)


Slide17: APAN Links January 2003


APAN links Connecting Tokyo Hub to Asian Countries: APAN links Connecting Tokyo Hub to Asian Countries Some Links to Tokyo Becoming High Speed KOREA: 1 Gbps Hyeonhae-Genkai (established in March 2003) TAIWAN: 155Mbps (fully paid by Taiwan) CHINA: 10 Mbps (fully paid by China) But the other links to Tokyo are < 2Mbps And many countries have their own R&E links to USA Taiwan 1.2 Gbps Australia 300 Mbps China 265 Mbps Singapore 90 Mbps Korea 45 Mbps [Also 34 Mbps to Europe] Hong Kong 45 Mbps Thailand 45 Mbps India 12 Mbps Japanese government is expected to fund high speed links from Tokyo to Asian countries. Y. Karita, KEK D. Son, Kyungpook


Progress in KOREA: Progress in KOREA Seoul Daegu Daejeon Busan Gwangju Suwon Kyungpook 34M KOREN and KREONET2 are being upgraded to Gigabit backbones And has upgraded their link to Japan with 1 GbE this year. Korea-Kyushu and to the StarLight in US Also upgraded its link to Europe via TEIN with 34 Mbps last April 17. KOREN


Slide20: Tyco/IEEAF Transpacific Donation IEEAF: 622 Mbps +10 Gbps  Japan-China-Korea-HK-Singapore


International Link Progress: South America: International Link Progress: South America Brazil: 622 Mbps Miami to Rio (RNP Nat’l Network + 15% NSF) CHEPREO Project Approved: FIorida Universities (FIU, UF, FSU), AMPATH (FIU), Caltech, UERJ (Rio) CMS Physics+Education and Outreach (FIU); North-South Collaboration; Advanced Networking


Slide22: SERENATE is the name of a series of strategic studies into the future of research and education networking in Europe, addressing the local (campus networks), national (national research & education networks), European and intercontinental levels. The SERENATE studies bring together the research and education networks of Europe, national governments and funding bodies, the European Commission, traditional and "alternative" network operators, equipment manufacturers and, last but not least, the scientific and education community as the users of networks and services. Study into European Research and Education Networking as Targeted by eEurope www.serenate.org Summary and Conclusions by D.O. Williams, CERN 


User Requirements: User Requirements In ALL countries and in ALL disciplines researchers are eagerly anticipating improved networking tools. There is no divide on the demand-side. Sciences, such as particle physics, which make heavy use of advanced networking, must help to break down any divide on the supply-side, or else declare themselves elitist and irrelevant to researchers in essentially all developing countries.


Optics and Fibres[Message to NRENs; or Nat’l Initiatives]: Optics and Fibres [Message to NRENs; or Nat’l Initiatives] If there is one single technical lesson from SERENATE it is that transmission is moving from the electrical domain to optical. The more you look at underlying costs the more you see the need for users to get access to fibre. When there’s good competition users can still lease traditional communications services (bandwidth) on an annual basis. But: Without enough competition prices go through the roof. A significant and fairly linear “divide” exists inside Europe – with worst countries [Macedonia, B-H, Albania, etc.] 1000s of times worse off than the best. Also many of the 10 new EU members are some 5X worse off that the 15 present members. Our best advice has to be “if you’re in a mess, you must get access to fibre”. Also try to lobby politicians to introduce real competition. In Serbia – still a full telecoms monopoly – the two ministers talked and the research community was given a fibre pair all around Serbia !


Slide25: Dai Davies SERENATE Workshop Feb. 2003


Connectivity pricing and competition: Connectivity pricing and competition In some locations the price of connectivity is (really) unreasonably high Linked (obviously) to how competitive the market is Strong competition on routes between various key European cities, and between major national centres Less competition  effectively none as you move to countries with de facto monopoly or simply to parts of countries where operators see little reason to invest. While some expensive routes are where you would expect, others are much more surprising (at first sight), like Canterbury and Lancaster (UK) and parts of Brittany (F)


Understanding transmission costs and DIY solutions: Understanding transmission costs and DIY solutions Own trenching only makes sense in very special cases. Say 1-30 km. Even then look for partners. Maybe useful (as a threat) over longer distances in countries with crazy pricing Now possible to lease (short- or long-term) fibres on many routes in Europe [0.5 to 2 KEuro/km Typ.] Transmission costs jump at ~200 km [below which you can operate with “Nothing In Line” (NIL), above which you need amplifiers] and ~800 km [above which you need signal regenerators] Possibly leading to some new approaches in GEANT-2 implementation


Europe’s internal “Digital Divide”: Europe’s internal “Digital Divide” This does exist, quite dramatically Partially an issue of the legacy of monopoly telecoms operators, and a situation which outside the EU-25 can be confused by unclear regulatory policy Natural market forces may not solve the fibre access issue, since the speed with which an investment in fibre will lead to a good profit is too slow. The only useful recommendation seems to be to advise that the NREN needs to get access to fibre somehow – by hook or by crook.


More inclusive NRENs?: More inclusive NRENs? Set of case studies of several “non-traditional” communities which are attached to various NRENs (schools, higher education, art schools, libraries, museums, government institutions) There was strong political pressure to make this happen in most cases Perhaps strongest in small countries (where there are big economies of scale in having the NREN be more inclusive) Some (but not as much as we expected) opposition from ISPs on competition grounds Will not be able to advise a Europe-wide approach But it seems probably unwise to insist on “NRENs should only be there to support research”, which may be largely true but wins you few friends


Slide30: AN INTERESTING STUDY MADE BY FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS - BRAZIL.; REPORTED by A. Santoro (UERJ) July 11 SCIC Meeting


Slide31: Until 2001, only 12,46% of Brazilians had Access to a PC and 8,31% to Internet


Slide32: With a Very Non-Uniform Distribution. For Example: Concentration in Parts of Rio de Janeiro


Slide33: % Having :PC - Internet - % Total Pop. Access to a PC, and to Internet Versus Years of Study 0 YEARS 1 TO 4 YEARS 4 TO 8 YEARS 8 TO 12 YEARS MORE THAN 12 YEARS ~1/3 of those with Access to a PC and to the Internet is concentrated in the hands of the 6% of the population who graduated from high school


Digital Divide and PingER: Digital Divide and PingER Prepared by Les Cottrell for the ICFA meeting, August 15, 2003 www.slac.stanford.edu/grp/scs/net/talk03/icfa-aug03.html Partially funded by DOE/MICS Field Work Proposal on Internet End-to-end Performance Monitoring (IEPM), also supported by IUPAP


PingER Benefits: PingER Benefits Measures analyzes & reports round-trip times, losses, availability, throughput ... Covers 75+ countries (99% of Internet connected population) Low impact on network 8yrs) and near real-time information How bad is performance to various regions, rank countries? Trends: who is catching up, falling behind, is progress being made? Compare vs. economic, development indicators etc. Use for troubleshooting, setting expectations, presenting to policy makers, funding bodies


Countries Monitored: Countries Monitored Used to monitor Only 1 host Need > 1 host to reduce anomalies


Recent additions: Recent additions Contacts New contacts in Vietnam, the Philippines, Serbia/Montenegro, Belarus, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, and Tunisia Looking for contacts in Cuba, Kenya, Algeria and South Africa, Uganda Added hosts in Macedonia, Serbia/Montenegro, Belarus, Turkey, Armenia, Mexico and Azerbaijan. Increased hosts monitored from CERN to give better European view Now monitoring 60 countries


Current State – June 2003 (Max. Throughput in Mbps): Current State – June 2003 (Max. Throughput in Mbps) Within region performance better E.g. Ca/US-NA, Hu-SE Eu, Eu-Eu, Jp-E Asia, Au-Au, Ru-Ru Africa, Caucasus, Central & S. Asia all bad Bad 200, 1000kbits/s


Trends: Trends Africa shown for only Uganda seen from SLAC, since adding new countries with very different throughputs distorts result S.E. Europe, Russia: Catching Up Latin Am., Mid East, China: Keeping Up India, Africa: Falling Behind


Loss Comparisons with Development (UNDP): Loss Comparisons with Development (UNDP) Even weaker with education & literacy Weak correlation with Human Devlopment Indx or GDP


Slide41: NREN Core Network Size (Mbps-km) 10M 1M 100K 10K 1K 100 2000 2001 Leading Advanced In transition Source: From slide prepared by Harvey Newman, presented by David Williams ICFA/SCIC talk on Serenate report. Data from the TERENA Compendium Lagging Derived throughput~MSS/(RTT*sqrt(loss)) Europe


Network Readiness: Network Readiness NRI from Center for International Development, Harvard U. http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch02.pdf Improved correlation (0.21 0.41) by: Using derived throughput ~ MSS / (RTT * sqrt(loss)) Fit to exponential Internet for all focus A&R focus NRI Tops Finland 5.92 US 5.79 Singapore 5.74 Sweden 5.58 Iceland 5.51 Canada 5.44 UK 5.35 Denmark 5.33 Taiwan 5.31 Germany 5.29 Netherlnd 5.28 Israel 5.22 Switz’land 5.18 Korea 5.10


Network Readiness Index:How Ready to Use Modern ICTs [*]?: Network Readiness Index: How Ready to Use Modern ICTs [*]? Network Readiness Index Environment Readiness Usage Market Infrastructure Political/Regulatory Individual Readiness Gov’t Readiness Business Readiness Individual Usage Gov’t Usage Business Usage (FI) (FI) (SG) (US) (IC) (SG) (US) (SG) (US) (FI) (FI) (DE) (KR) ( ): Which Country is First From the 2002-2003 Global Information Technology Report. See http://www.weforum.org


Collaborations & Funding: Collaborations & Funding SLAC with help from FNAL (+CERN) 35+ monitoring sites in 15 countries Plan to add ICTP Trieste if funded Digital Divide collaboration (MOU) with ICTP, Trieste eJDS They are looking for a EU grant for eJDS and PingER Hopeful next year Need funding for coming year: Working with DoE, NSF, Pew Charitable Foundation … Tasks: (0.5 FTE) BASIC OPERATIONS ongoing maintain data collection, explain needs, reopen connections, open firewall blocks, find replacement hosts, make limited special analyses, prepare & make presentations, respond to questions (1 FTE) OPS and DEVELOPMENT extend the code for new environment (more countries, more data collections), fix known non-critical bugs, improve visualization, remove need for many specially generated reports, find new country site contacts, add route histories and visualization, automate alarms, update web site for better navigation, more DD monitoring sites, improve code portability Also looking for small grants for helpers in developing countries Possibilities: www.cos.com, www.sigmaxi.com


PingER Summary: PingER Summary Performance 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 Need Funding to Continue SCIC and ICFA Rely on this effort for our Monitoring mission and for our support of global collaborations Requesting ICFA’s Help


More Information: More Information PingER: www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/ eJDS www.ejds.org/ ICFA/SCIC Network Monitoring report, Jan03 www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/icfa/icfa-net-paper-dec02 Monitoring the Digital Divide, CHEP03 paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0305/0305016.pdf Human Development Index www.undp.org/hdr2003/pdf/hdr03_backmatter_2.pdf Network Readiness Index www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Initiatives+subhome


Upcoming Events on Networking and the Digital Divide: Upcoming Events on Networking and the Digital Divide Telecom World 2003 (ITU-Geneva), October 12-18 http://www.itu.int/WORLD2003/ Joint Session with the Internet2 Members’ Meeting in Indianapolis http://events.internet2.edu/2003/fall-mm/ Advanced Networking and Grid-based Analysis Demonstrations: Plan to Use 10 Gbps Path: CERN-Starlight-LA (CENIC) Supercomputing 2003, November 15-21 http://www.sc-conference.org/sc2003/ Role of Science in the Information Society (RSIS) at CERN Dec. 8 & 9; http://rsis.cern.ch; and The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Dec. 10-12 http://www.itu.int/wsis/ [CERN-US Advanced Network Demos] 2nd Open Rountable on Developing Countries’ Access to Scientific Knowledge: Quantifying the Digital Divide: October 23-24 at ICTP Trieste http://www.ejds.org/meeting2003/ Digital Divide/Grid Workshop February 16-20, 2004 in Rio de Janeiro Co-Chairs HN + Alberto Santoro (Chair of DD Working Group) Meeting Between HEP Spokespersons, Directors and Brazilian Government Officials February 18 ICFA SCIC Meeting February 19


WSIS Action Plan: Synergy Points with ICFA SCIC (1): WSIS Action Plan: Synergy Points with ICFA SCIC (1) 38. Internationally harmonized concepts, definitions and standard indicators that would guide measurements for international comparability should be developed by 2005. 39. The WSIS should adopt guidelines that will assist in the development of internationally compatible statistical measurement. 47. Digital development index: A composite ICT Development (Digital Opportunity) Index should be launched and gradually developed. It could be published annually, or every two years, in an ICT Development Report. The index could show the ranking of countries while the report would present analytical work on policies and their implementation. ITU could coordinate this activity, drawing upon the existing experiences in various organizations, universities, think-tanks etc. 74. To effectively plan and coordinate the development of the Information Society, indicators and measurements that evaluate and compare the progress of penetration of ICTs and their use by the population should be developed in cooperation with the scientific community.


WSIS Action Plan: Synergy Points with ICFA SCIC [*] (2): WSIS Action Plan: Synergy Points with ICFA SCIC [*] (2) 75. Consideration should be given to the incorporation of new community connectivity indicators which allow analysis of the development of communities in which community connectivity is introduced, thus enabling the real impact and effectiveness of public policies to be measured in each country 76. Appropriate indicators and benchmarking should clarify the magnitude of the digital divide, and keep it under regular assessment, with the purpose of measuring the effectiveness of international cooperation and transfer of technology mechanisms. 126. Initiate in Geneva a process to develop realistic benchmarks and indicators, with a national and regional perspective, including those on connectivity and Universal Access 127. Initiate a preparatory process for the development of specific criteria for the measurement of digital divide [*] Points Selected by Les Cottrell, Chair of the SCIC Monitoring Group


Slide50: See here the poster of HEPGRID AND  DIGITAL DIVIDE WORKSHOP NEWS: Bulletin: ONE TWO WELCOME BULLETIN General Information Registration Travel Information Hotel Registration Participant List How to Get UERJ/Hotel Computer Accounts Useful Phone Numbers Program Contact us: Secretariat Chairmen ATTENTION: READ HERE ABOUT HOTEL RESERVATION FOR CARNIVAL TIME HE Deadline for Registration:  January X  2004 The main purpose of this Workshop is discuss the relation between the Digital Divide and the High Energy Physics Grid Projects. Countries Participation, Network conditions and so on . TALKS:  If you are interested to give a talk or present a poster, please contact the session's convener of the appropriated  subject.  The list of the Convenors are in the General Information page. All talks are invited talks.   CLAF  CNPQ  FAPERJ        UERJ SPONSORS HEPGRID and Digital Divide Workshop Rio de Janeiro, February 16-20 2004 Theme: Global Collaborations, Grids and Their Relationship to the Digital Divide Sessions Monday, Tuesday AM, Wednesday, Thurs. AM Expecting 40-60 Persons Meeting of Experiment Spokespersons/Directors with Brazilian Officials (University and Government), on Wednesday February 18. Thursday PM and/Or Friday AM: ICFA SCIC Meeting More Information: at the http://cern.ch/icfa-scic website; (by end of August)


Slide51: http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/riotur/rioportu/menufotos.html If you want to see these photos in good size go to:


Some Extra Slides Follow: Some Extra Slides Follow


ICFA SCICJuly 11, 2003 Agenda : 12:30 Startup; Test VRVS Connections 13:00 Introduction H. Newman 13:10 Reports from Sites ALL Includes Reports from Japan, CERN & Europe, France/CCIN2P3, UK, US, Canada, Russia, SLAC, FNAL, Korea, & Others 14:40 Advanced Technologies WG Report, and Plan R. Hughes-Jones to Complete a WG Report to ICFA by September 14:55 Monitoring Working Group Report L. Cottrell 15:15 Perspective on the Future of Multicast, and Dino Farinacci, Highlights of the IETF Meeting in Vienna Procket Networks 15:55 Break 16:15 Digital Divide WG Plans and Schedule for the DD/Grid Workshop in Rio A. Santoro Digital Divide Website and Database H. Alvarez SERENATE: Perspective on the DD in Europe D. O. Williams 17:30 Discussion: Possible Topics The DD/Grid Workshop; Work by SCIC for the rest of 2003; RSIS and WSIS; Reports to the ICFA Meeting in Paris (Feb. 14-15 2004) 18:30 AOB; Next Meeting 18:40 ADJOURN ICFA SCIC July 11, 2003 Agenda


Bandwidth Growth of Int’l HENP Networks (US-CERN Example): Bandwidth Growth of Int’l HENP Networks (US-CERN Example) Rate of Progress >> Moore’s Law. (US-CERN Example) 9.6 kbps Analog (1985) 64-256 kbps Digital (1989 - 1994) [X 7 – 27] 1.5 Mbps Shared (1990-3; IBM) [X 160] 2 -4 Mbps (1996-1998) [X 200-400] 12-20 Mbps (1999-2000) [X 1.2k-2k] 155-310 Mbps (2001-2) [X 16k – 32k] 622 Mbps (2002-3) [X 65k] 2.5 Gbps  (2003-4) [X 250k] 10 Gbps  (2005) [X 1M] A factor of ~1M over a period of 1985-2005 (a factor of ~5k during 1995-2005) HENP has become a leading applications driver, and also a co-developer of global networks; Rapid Development Cycle


On Feb. 27-28, a Terabyte of data was transferred in 3700 seconds by S. Ravot of Caltech between the Level3 PoP in Sunnyvale near SLAC and CERN through the TeraGrid router at StarLight from memory to memory As a single TCP/IP stream at average rate of 2.38 Gbps.  (Using large windows and 9kB “Jumbo frames”)This beat the former record by a factor of ~2.5, and  used the US-CERN link at 99% efficiency.: On Feb. 27-28, a Terabyte of data was transferred in 3700 seconds by S. Ravot of Caltech between the Level3 PoP in Sunnyvale near SLAC and CERN through the TeraGrid router at StarLight from memory to memory As a single TCP/IP stream at average rate of 2.38 Gbps. (Using large windows and 9kB “Jumbo frames”) This beat the former record by a factor of ~2.5, and used the US-CERN link at 99% efficiency. 10GigE Data Transfer: Internet2 LSR European Commission 10GigE NIC Guinness Book of Records ~40 People for a Month (After the Testbed was Built)


LHC Data Grid Hierarchy: LHC Data Grid Hierarchy Emerging Vision: A Richly Structured, Global Dynamic System


LHCnet peering & Optical Connectivity : LHCnet peering & Optical Connectivity Excellent Relationships and Connectivity with Research and Academic Networks, and HENP Labs Internet2, CENIC/NLR, SURFNet; Especially CERN, SLAC & FNAL LHCNet Extension to Sunnyvale Loaned by Level3 for SC2002 Internet2 LSR: 22 TB transferred in 6 hrs: Baltimore-Sunnyvale Transatlantic Optical Triangle to 10G in September, then Extended to the UK, forming an Optical Quadrangle Lambda Triangle 10G Level3 Loan: Balt – SNV 10/02 – 2/03 To 10G in Sept 2003 10G 10G


UltraLight: To be Proposed to the NSF Cyberinfrastructure Program: UltraLight: To be Proposed to the NSF Cyberinfrastructure Program http://ultralight.caltech.edu First “Hybrid” packet-switched and circuit-switched optical network Leveraging advanced research & production networks USLIC/DataTAG, SURFnet/NLlight, UKLight, Abilene, CA*net4 Dark fiber to CIT, SLAC, FNAL, UMich; Florida Light Rail Intercont’l extensions: Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Taiwan Trans-US wavelength riding on NLR: LA-SNV-CHI-JAX Three Flagship Applications: Serving a Broad Community HENP: TByte to PByte “block” data transfers at 1-10+ Gbps eVLBI: Real time data streams at 1 to several Gbps Radiation Oncology: GByte image “bursts” delivered in ~1 second A traffic mix presenting a variety of network challenges


UltraLight POP at Starlight : UltraLight POP at Starlight


UltraLight: An Ultra-scale Optical Network Laboratory for Next Generation Science: UltraLight: An Ultra-scale Optical Network Laboratory for Next Generation Science http://ultralight.caltech.edu Ultrascale protocols and MPLS: Classes of service used to share primary 10G  efficiently Scheduled or sudden “overflow” demands handled by provisioning additional wavelengths: GE, N*GE, and eventually 10 GE Use path diversity, e.g. across the Atlantic, Canada Move to multiple 10G ’s (leveraged) by 2005-6 Unique feature: agent-based, end-to-end monitored, dynamically provisioned mode of operation Agent services span all layers of the system; Communication application characteristics and requirements to The protocol stacks, MPLS class provisioning and the optical cross-connects Dynamic responses help manage traffic flow


Slide61: By I. Legrand (Caltech) Monitors Clusters, Networks Deployed on CMS Grid Agent-based Dynamic information / resource discovery mechanisms Talks w/Other Mon. Systems Implemented in Java/Jini; SNMP WDSL / SOAP with UDDI Being deployed in Abilene; through the Internet2 E2EPi MonaLisa: A Globally Scalable Grid Monitoring System