February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL1 Report to ICFA February 11, 2000 Matthias Kasemann,...

February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL

1

Report to ICFAFebruary 11, 2000

Matthias Kasemann, FNAL


2

ICFA SCIC meeting: Nov. 13, 1999

Invited UK representative: Richard Hughes-Jones

Topics discussed: Status reports from Canada, CERN, DESY, France, Italy,

Japan, UK. Wide Area networks end-to-end performance measurements

for video and file transfer show need for application tuning. Quality of Service for National Research Networks and

monitoring results.

Plans for Video system (VRVS project) for higher quality and extended compatibility to video clients.


3

Impact of loss on applications

Email fairly insensitive to quality, may be delayed

but keeps retrying for days and eventually gets through

Web usually has human but expectations are low,

performance often more limited by server, human present so can retry

Bulk file transfer unattended, if > 10-12% loss connections

can time out

Interactive telnet, voice very time & loss sensitive E.g. telnet/ssh loss of > 3% severely

impacts typing ability

Importance of loss/perform

ance


4

PerformanceMeasurements from28 monitors in 15 countriesOver 500 remote hosts72 countries (covers all 56 PDG booklet countries)

Over 1200 monitor-remote site pairs

Over 50% of HENP collaborator sites are explicitly monitored as remote sites by PingER project Atlas (37%), BaBar (68%), Belle (23%), CDF (73%),

CMS (31%), D0 (60%), LEP (44%), Zeus (35%), PPDG (100%), RHIC(64%)


5

Results: Top level view - Aug-99

Good (0-1%)Acceptable (1-2.5%)

Poor (2.5-5%)V. poor (5-12%)

Bad (> 12%)

~ 2000 pairs in 56 countries

% packet loss between regionsMonitoring region

Rem

ote region

Within region (on diagonal) good to acceptable


6

European performance from U.S.


7

E. Eur-ope Loss

Country US UK CH KR RU JP IT HU DE DK CA BR AvgAlbania 1.6 1.6Armenia 9.0 9.0Azerbaijan 5.0 5.0Bulgaria 3.6 3.6Byelorus 11.2 11.2Croatia 22.0 22.0Czech R. 3.3 1.1 0.4 11.7 12.5 3.0 0.9 4.3 1.5 1.9 5.1 7.4 4.4Estonia 8.7 8.7Finland 6.8 6.8Georgia 8.7 8.7Hungary 7.4 8.4 8.7 17.7 15.0 10.5 4.9 5.2 9.1 8.8 13.1 15.2 10.3Latvia 10.5 10.5Lithuania 9.8 9.8Macedonia14.4 14.4Moldova 9.0 9.0Poland 14.5 14.5Romania 2.3 2.3Russia 9.8 5.5 5.9 33.6 0.0 13.2 5.4 9.5 4.4 7.2 25.3 28.5 12.4Slovakia 3.1 3.1Slovenia 11.5 11.5Soviet U 11.3 2.7 2.6 17.0 0.4 11.7 11.0 5.6 2.1 3.8 10.9 14.1 7.8Turkey 7.3 7.3Ukraine 14.9 14.9Average 8.9 4.4 4.4 20.0 7.0 9.6 5.5 6.2 4.2 5.4 13.6 16.3

Good

Accept

Poor

V. poor

Bad

Slovakia

Czech R.

Czech republic & Slovakia better than most, also Bulgaria

Bulgaria

CH, DE, & UK have better connections to Russia than most, within Russia OK

Most v.poor to badBaltic States from US are v. poor

LatviaLithuania

Estonia

Romania

Albania

Albania & Romania good

Croatia

Macedonia

Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia poor to bad

Slovenia


8

Packet loss from N. America to Russia, Jan-Aug 1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dec-98 Feb-99 Mar-99 May-99 Jul-99 Aug-99

Pac

ket

loss

Canada-ITEP Canada-NSKEdu-ITEP Edu-NSKEsnet-ITEP Esnet-NSKEsnet-Dubna Esnet-IHEPEsnet-RSSI

Russia

ESnet – NSk good, ESnet – ITEP & IHEP improved with new satelliteCanada & Edu bad all overDESY, CERN improved to acceptable to ITEP, IHEP, NSK with new satellite, Dubna still v. poor to bad, UK poor to ITEP & NSKKEK good to NSk, v. poor to ITEP


9

Europe seen from U.S.

650ms

200 ms

7% loss10% loss

1% loss

Monitor siteBeacon site (~10% sites)HENP countryNot HENPNot HENP & not monitored


10

India / Mumbai /

TIFR

ESnet acceptable, Brazil, E. Europe/Russia poor to badGot better for Japan (KEK & RIKEN), ESnet, W. Europe in Oct-99, but now worse again (5 days in Nov)Stanford vs. CMU & SLAC, possibly BBN-CW peering

Packet loss to India

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99

slac.stanford.edu hep.net doe.govbnl.gov es.net cmu.edustanford.edu carleton.ca desy.decnaf.infn.it cern.ch itep.rukfki.hu kaist.kr.apan.net riken.go.jpkek.jp ansp.br

Just added as beacon site


11

E. Asia. Asia

E. Europe

N. America

S. America

W . Europe Avg

Taiwan 4 19.48 1.84 6.58 7.01 7.8Singapore 3.8 3.8Japan 0.3 4.8 1.86 6.64 1.09 2.9Hong Kong 8.7 20.63 2.87 6.24 2.87 8.3China 6.1 6.63 3.66 8.38 3.47 5.7Avg 4.59 12.89 2.56 6.96 3.61


Poor (2.5-5%)V. poor (5-12%)

Bad (> 12%)

Japan good to acceptable to N. America & W. EuropeS. America poor to all E. AsiaHong Kong & China similar (v. different routes)


12

Asia seen from U.S.

3.6% loss

10% loss

0.1% loss

640 ms

450 ms

250ms


13

JP KR HU RU CA US BR DE IT CH AvgArgentina 22.0% 25.0% 21.0% 38.0% 20.0% 18.0% 22.0% 19.0% 19.0% 17.0% 22.1%

Brazil 8.5% 16.0% 10.0% 28.0% 7.7% 5.0% 1.3% 8.0% 8.4% 6.9% 10.0%

Colombia 4.9% 13.0% 7.7% 32.0% 7.7% 5.0% 1.4% 6.4% 2.7% 9.0%

Average 11.8% 18.0% 12.9% 32.7% 11.8% 9.3% 8.2% 11.1% 13.7% 8.9%

S. America


Poor (2.5-5%)V. poor (5-12%)

Bad (> 12%)

Generally poor to badArgentina is bad with everyoneWithin Brazil & within Colombia, & Brazil to Colombia is acceptableColumbia looks like to be the best


14

Latin America, Africa & Australasia

4% Loss

2% Loss

350 ms

700ms

170 ms

220 ms


15

Middle East

SLAC-Israel big change ~Sep 5 RTT went from 250 msec (E3 via London) to 620 msec Loss went from 6% to 1% ESnet peers with Israel at Chicago STAR-TAP (T3 satellite to

Israel) 9 hops

Iran (chapar.ipm.ac.ir) RTT 1000 msec. 11% loss ESnet - ATT (NY) - Unisource (NL) - archway

13 hops


16

Bulk transfer - Performance Trends

Bandwidth TCP < 1460/(RTT * sqrt(loss))

Note: E. Europe NOT catching up


17

Problem areas - summary

Germany was bad with .ca & .edu yet good with ESnet. DESY improved to poor/acceptable in Aug with dedicated 3.5Mbps PVC to US/Canada R&E, apart from Carleton

Russia (W) bad to .ca & .edu, good to ESnet, mixed to Europe, poor to .jp. Dubna worse than others. ITEP/IHEP better since new satellite

Former E. block generally poor to bad

China/Hong Kong poor to very poor with most

S. America poor to very poor

India poor


18

Monitoring results: summary(1)

Performance is getting better

Within Western NRENs things are good Good enough even for VoIP in terms of RTT, jitter, loss

Internet reliability in some cases is beginning to approach that specified in phone

company frame-relay contracts, but still has a way to go to meet phone company standards of 99.999%

Improving QoS requires some combination of: Increased bandwidth, but even keeping pace with growing

requirements takes constant upgrades and investment

Managed/reserved bandwidth works today in several cases

Diff Serv has big potential but it is still a research topic


19

Monitoring results: summary(2)

International performance from US to sites outside W. Europe, Japan, Korea is generally poor to bad

Transoceanic, needs special care, peering is critical for

E. Europe, Russia, China, India, S. America performance is where N. America & W. Europe were 4 years ago and may not be improving as fast so the discrepancy is likely to increase.


20

Report on immediate problem areas:

One particular problem area is the outlying regions (outside the developed regions of the world, W. Europe, N. America and Japan) who have poor connectivity (and may be falling further behind)

and yet are delivering important contributions to HEP.

In many cases the countries need an enabler to push the Internet connectivity for the NREN.

ICFA members are closer to the level that can have an impact on the political representatives in the regions.


21

VRVS summary

Principal Investigator: Caltech and ESnetCollaborators: CERN, Internet2/UCAID

The Virtual Rooms Videoconferencing System namely called VRVS has been put in production since early 1997.

It provides a low cost, bandwidth-efficient, extensible tool for videoconferencing and collaborative work over networks within the High Energy and Nuclear Physics communities and to some extent within Research and Education at large.


22

VRVS Current & future VRVS is now a production system: As of today, more than 1937 machines from 1253 different users are registered into the

system. During year 1999, 872 Multipoint Conferences has been Conducted (Total 2325 Hours). More than 3000 point to point connection established. 7 Virtual Rooms are available for World Wide Conferences in addition to the 4 available

for each Continent (America only, Europe only, Asia only).

VRVS Future evolution/integration (R&D) Deployment and support of VRVS. High Quality video and audio (MPEG1, MPEG2,..). Shared applications, environment and workspace. Integration of H.323 I.T.U Standard into VRVS. Quality of Service (QoS) over the network. Documentation and user-configuration recommendations. Improved security, authentication and confidentiality.


23

ICFA-SCIC would like to point out:

How can we help to improve the network situation and spend limited amount of money?

Suggested goal: HENP members of the country should participate in R&D

project with a western Lab/experiment that requires video conferencing for all collaborators to participate in, this may help to drive the requirement.

LHC detector production+ quality control, communication to production site

fully participate in LHC meetings and working groups from home institutes, publications of schools

contribution to collaborative software development (à la VRVS) with special emphasis on low bandwidth requirements.


24

ICFA-SCIC would like to recommend:

Suggested goal (‘ctd): This proposal needs to be acceptable to the country, which

requires pre-discussion with the country.

Video conferencing rooms and tools must be more widely available (at center (CERN, FNAL, SLAC) and remote)

low entrance cost for VRVS on desktop and conference rooms

Establish a 2Mbps line to the country.

February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL1 Report to ICFA February 11, 2000 Matthias Kasemann,...

Documents

Transcript of February 11, 2000 ICFA, RAL M.Kasemann, FNAL1 Report to ICFA February 11, 2000 Matthias Kasemann,...