Interesting People mailing list archives
Changes to the Internet Going on Now (telecom digest)
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 19:09:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 16:32:46 CST From: telecom () delta eecs nwu edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Some thoughts on the massive changes the Internet has undergone over the past year or so and what lies ahead in the near future. I offer this special report submitted to the Digest for your consideration this weekend. PAT Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 21:05:04 -0600 From: breit () MR Net (Kelly Breit) Subject: FYI> Hang onto your Packets: The Information Superhighway Heads to Valleyfair Thought you might find this article interesting. It was written by a regional ISP. ------------------------ Hang onto your Packets: The Information Superhighway heads to Valleyfair or Building a high performance computer system without reading the instructions. March 14, 1995 Preface: We are now in the midst of an immense transition on the Internet: The implementation of a new structure that has been in the making for several years. It was publicly mapped out two years ago with the release of a solicitation for proposals by the National Science Foundation (NSF solicitation 93-52) for four separate components of a new American national backbone architecture. The effects of this transition will be felt over the next few months and repercussions of it will evolve over the next few years. There is a potential for profound effects on the immediate needs and requirements of all MRNet members and subscribers: namely, stable and reliable Internet access. Because there may be difficulties and disruptions in these services and many periods of wild ups and downs (not all that different from a roller coaster ride at the nearby Valleyfair amusement park), I am writing to give you some background of how we arrived at this point and what might be expected in the near term. This description will be part history and part personal observation. It is not intended to be a comprehensive scholarly description, but rather my observations based on watching things over the past year or so and some recent events that have confirmed some of my fears and also my enthusiasms. Ancient and Recent History: The Internet, as we know it up to this point, has a long history (in technology industry terms), going back to research with the ARPAnet and introduction of the first early backbone to connect the NSF sponsored supercomputer centers in the mid 1980s. The core of the national Internet we are all familiar with had its start with the awarding of a 5-year cooperative agreement in 1987 to Merit, the Michigan state networking organization, and its partners MCI and IBM. This was to provide a national backbone network service with a bandwidth of 1.5Mbit/sec, and several access points around the country. Merit provided the expertise in managing a network service, including routing, IBM provided the core backbone routing equipment and MCI facilities were used for the trunk lines. This system was originally research and education based and mostly higher education institutions and research corporations were the users. A system of regional and state networks (like MRNet) grew up around this core and provided access to the user organizations in their areas. Most all of these regional networks were nonprofit public-service based organizations that had grown out of major research universities. The popularity of the system grew at a steady pace, primarily with financial help from the National Science Foundation, championed by the director of the NSF Division of Network Communications and Research Infrastructure (DNCRI) Steve Wolff. DNCRI provided funding to higher education and regional networks to help with connectivity. The system evolved into an orderly structure of a high-speed backbone (the NSFNET backbone service), mid-level networks and campus and corporate networks where the end-users were attached. Routing and management was centered at Merit and policies and procedures evolved for the smooth operation and growth of the system. As the popularity of such a system increased, some people saw it would be worthwhile to provide access to this system as a business opportunity. Entrepreneurs, with experience gained from regional network operation or similar networking services provision, established new businesses to get in on a new opportunity. The first generation of these were Performance Systems International (PSI) which was spawned out of NYSERNet in New York, and Alternet, a service of UUNet Technologies in Virginia, which had considerable experience in UUCP network services among others. In 1991, the Merit/IBM/MCI partnership was reformed with the creation of a new nonprofit corporation, Advanced Networks and Services (ANS) in which the founding partners entrusted the operation of the NSFNET backbone service. ANS formed a for-profit subsidiary, ANS CO+RE (Commercial + Research&Education) to offer full commercial traffic on its backbone. This was somewhat controversial, since ANS had the advantage of the NSF subsidy of about $10 million/year to operate the NSFNET backbone service. The concept of NSF-sponsored research/educational-only traffic and commercial traffic running on the same wires was a difficult concept for many to accept and ANS was considered to have an unfair competitive advantage over PSI, Alternet and now Sprint (who was also entering into the commercial backbone service). This resulted in much discussion on several mailing lists, self-appointed crusaders for justice, an Inspector General report and a congressional hearing. None of this had much of an effect on anything in the end, however. Plans were underway at that time to upgrade the NSFNET backbone from its T1-based (1.5Mbit/sec) bandwidth to a T3-based (45Mbit/sec) service. This required new designs in routing equipment and interfaces and the transition was a somewhat lengthy one, stretching over several months with some degree of technical difficulty, since setting up a T3-based high-performance backbone service with high levels of production traffic was, at that time, on the leading edge of technology. There were a number of small disruptions in service as the network stabilized and Merit and ANS learned how to deal with these new technologies and rapidly growing levels of participants and traffic. However, there was a critical advantage to that transition, in that it was being designed and engineered by people who had considerable experience in operating such a system, and the new service would be provided by those same people. There was no handoff to any new organizations. The same group operated both the T1 and T3 backbones during the transition and the T1 backbone was always there as a fallback (though its ability to actually handle the traffic load was lacking at that point). As the five year cooperative agreement period advanced to its conclusion, the NSF engaged a small team to come up with a new agreement or set of agreements to bring the national backbone system into a new structure. The NSF observed that its sponsorship of the backbone service, once considered an area of advanced technology and research, was now operating as a commodity service with several commercial networks in place. The NSF was set to move on to other advanced network technology projects and worked to come up with a way to withdraw from the established networking services and allow the commercial free market to carry on. However, NSF did have a responsibility to the educational and research activity it had been sponsoring for so long, so it did not intend to just walk away. Rather, it worked to come up with a scheme to facilitate an orderly transition to the new system. This was a lengthy process and there was considerable public input solicited, especially from the mid-level network community. This resulted in the publishing of a solicitation for proposals. It requested the proposals for four areas that would comprise the new national Internet structure: 1. NAPs - Network Access Points. The NSF proposed to sponsor a number of exchange points where national backbone providers (also called Network Service Providers or NSPs) could meet and exchange traffic. The NAPs would fulfill this function, and were intended to be a level 2 service; i.e. they would operate at the data link layer and carry the network layer (TCP/IP) traffic that was managed by the backbone operators who connected there. The idea behind this structure was to establish a limited number of interconnect points for the commercial backbones. NSF's stake was to guarantee full connectivity for the research and education community. Without the sponsorship of a core set of meet points, backbone providers would likely set up a hodgepodge of bilateral connect points, potentially resulting in routing chaos. The NAP operator is to provide the exchange facility. It is up to the individual NSPs that connect to the NAP to work out bilateral exchange agreements with the other NAP connectees. 2. Routing Arbiter. This would be an independent organization that would operate route servers at each of the NAPs. These servers would contain the database of routes to ease the transfer of traffic among the backbone providers that met at the NAPs. 3. vBNS - Very-High-Speed Backbone Network Service This would be the one new backbone network that the NSF would sponsor. It was intended to be a leading-edge research network operating at a minimum bandwidth of 155Mbit/sec with later upgrade to 622Mbit/sec. There would be a strict acceptable use policy on this network: It could only be used for meritorious high-bandwidth research activities. There could be no production traffic such as general file transfers, remote logins, Web browsing or email. That was to travel on the commercial backbones. 4. Inter-regional connectivity These would be a series of awards made to the academic regional networks (the group that built the original Internet). Since access to the ANS-operated NSFNET had no gateway access charge, there would be a large expense shock to the regional nets and their clients when they now had to pay hefty access fees for 45Mbit or above gateways onto the commercial backbones. The NSF proposed to award the regional nets a subsidy, declining to zero over a four year period, to ease the transition to higher fee levels or growth that would support the costs of commercial backbone access. Many organizations spent the summer of 1993 responding to this solicitation and by August of that year, they were all in. Independent review panels made recommendations to NSF staff and in February of 1994, the first series of awards were made: 1. NAPs The NSF awarded 3 priority NAPs. One in the New York area, one in Chicago and one in the San Francisco Bay area (California NAP) a. The NY NAP was awarded to Sprint, who proposed an interim FDDI ring with routers, to be substituted by an ATM switch when they felt the technology ready. b. The Chicago NAP was awarded to Ameritech and Bellcore. Ameritech is the Regional Bell Operating Company in the Great Lakes area. Bellcore is the research arm of the Regional phone companies. Ameritech proposed to install an ATM switch system using an AT&T Globeview-2000 switch. c. The California NAP was awarded to Pacbell and Bellcore. Pacbell also proposed the immediate installation of an ATM switch system using 2 Newbridge 36150 units. d. A fourth semi-offical NAP, called the DC NAP also is being put inplaced. It is built and operated by Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS) in the Washington DC area. MFS is evolving its facility from its current Ethernet meet point, to an FDDI system. 2. Routing Arbiter This award went to a joint team of Merit (the routing manager of the current NSFNET) and the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of California. ISI will do most of the work on routing management systems and Merit will implement the route servers and route server database. 3. vBNS This award went to MCI, who is implementing this service now as a 155Mbit/s ATM service. Connections to the five NSF-sponsored supercomputer centers and the NSF priority NAPs are under way and service is expected to be available by April 1, 1995. 4. Inter-regional connectivity A series of awards was made to several regional networks who chose Network Service Providers (NSPs) to carry their traffic to the NAPs and other backbones. Most (7-8) of the regionals chose InternetMCI. Two or three chose SprintLink and one chose ANS. Now What: This brings us to where we are today: Smack in the middle of the transition from the old NSFNET to the new structure. You will notice that this moves the national structure from a primary R&E T3 backbone with several growing parallel commercial backbones to a more complex system of multiple commercial backbones with major exchange points. Previously, the ANS/NSFNET was really the center of the national Internet. There will no longer be a single national central backbone; indeed, traffic on the current T3 ANS/NSFNET would soon be reaching the point of saturation. There is no current production technology that can provide a single replacement network backbone to carry the required traffic. What, Me Worry? You may notice that this newer complex scheme has no single authority overseeing the implementation. The success of the construction depends upon the mutual cooperation of multiple phone companies, (both regional (Regional Bell Operating Companies or RBOCs) and national long-distance (IntereXchange Carriers or IXCs), Academic and commercial research institutions, equipment manufacturers and regional network providers. The National Science Foundation does not see it as its role to manage the new national Internet structure. Merit is responsible, via the existing cooperative agreement, for the smooth running and handoff of the existing system, but not the management of the building of the new structure. This new system is a massive complex assembly of components and subsystems that must be put in place by multiple independent organizations, most of them fierce competitors of each other, on a strict schedule (funding for the existing NSFNET terminates irrevocably on April 1, 1995) and there is no Project Manager. There are also potential sources of problems in the implementation of the components by the major players. The greatest risk comes at the NAPs. A NAP is really a high-performance computing system, with multiple I/O channels, sophisticated hardware and software, and a need for operational procedures that are well planned and understood. I used to be involved in the design and development of high-performance computing systems and there were a couple of fundamental axioms you followed if you didn't want to fall flat on your face: 1. Don't change technology and architecture at the same time. The developmental risks of trying to do two major things at once is too great. 2. Build a prototype that you plan to discard. This is required of any major systems development project, either hardware or software. The rule is, plan to build a prototype, because if you don't, you will build it anyway; it will be called version 1.0 or model 100 and will be a lot more expensive. Half of the NAP operators violated these axioms. There is a major architectural change in these new systems. It will take the NAP operators time to figure out how to manage a major switching system with multiple high-bandwidth backbone operators depending upon it and pouring traffic into it. It will also take a while to work this into the grand new national system. This is the architectural change. The NAP operators may potentially have to deal with new technologies to implement the high-bandwidth needs of managing the exchange of such large volumes of IP packets. This is the technology change. There is also the issue of inexperience. With the exception of MFS, none of the NAP operators has ever done this kind of thing before. MFS, in DC, has some experience at managing a meet point. It has operated the Metropolitan Area Ethernet in the East (MAE-East) for a year or two. This is an informal exchange point where most of the NSPs meet to exchange traffic. They have chosen to build on this experience and expand the technology from Ethernet to FDDI, not a great technological leap. This is a fairly safe approach. Sprint, in NY, has never operated a proto-NAP, but will learn how. It has chosen to implement the new architecture, but build a prototype out of current technology. They will then migrate it to ATM after experience is gained at both NAP operation and when ATM technology is more proven. They are building a prototype. Ameritech Advanced Data Services in Chicago had determined that it doesn't need a prototype and was going to use ATM from the start. Ditto with Pacbell in California. Well, it turns out that there are problems with both the ATM technology in a high-bandwidth high-volume production application and with some of the interface equipment required to be used with the ATM equipment. (Surprise, surprise - a new unproven technology has some kinks yet.) Ameritech, at the last minute in January decided to build a prototype after all and ordered an FDDI ring and some Cisco 7000 routers to build a limited prototype. Pacbell ran into the same problems, but planned to blast on with its initial plans, convinced that they would make it work in time. OK, Everybody Jump: Beginning in Dec '94 and Jan-Feb '95, the regional networks began to move their traffic onto their new NSP backbones. The problem was, the NAPs weren't fully ready. MAE-East, a 10Mbit ethernet, for a while became the center of the US Internet, since it was the only working meet-point for a large number of NSPs. Fortunately, MAE-East evolved into MAE-East+, an FDDI version, more capable of handling the traffic volumes. As of this time (mid March) the Chicago NAP is still not operational. The Pacbell NAP had already been written off as a reliable exchange point by most. The Sprint NAP is up, but not everyone is connected there yet. The key players, MCI, Sprint and ANS are, however and traffic between the MCI-connected regionals and Sprint customers is tranversing the Sprint NAP. Traffic load through it is high because of the lack of operational status of the other two NAPs. Since, in January, Pacbell was still planning to go ahead with the ATM system which many were convinced would not work, and not build a prototype, the manager of the NASA Science Internet decided to build one for them. NASA is installing a DEC Gigaswitch at its Ames facility and inviting any NSP or other entity to wire into it. It will be called MAE-West. This will provide a critical exchange point for the west coast. Most of the western regional networks are sending traffic to the east coast for exchange onto other backbones. Packets from one Seattle company to another can travel to Washington and back to reach their destination; not an optimal situation. Pressure was brought to bear on Pacbell, and I believe they have agreed to install FDDI equipment to finally construct a prototype. How this now fits in with the new MAE-West is unclear. So, When Does the Ride Start? Are we gonna crash?: The transition is underway now. All MRNet traffic now travels via CICNet infrastructure onto the InternetMCI national T3 backbone. Within a month or two, our traffic will travel directly via T3 link to InternetMCI. Traffic to SprintLink, PSI, Alternet or other customers transits the exchange points, which at the present are either MAE-East+ or the NY NAP. Traffic to SprintLink customers goes via MAE-East+ because Sprint does not yet have enough bandwidth in place to connect to its NY NAP, so I've been told. Over the next month or so, we are likely to see the Chicago NAP come up and the MAE-West facility come up. The Pacbell NAP may also be working within a short time also. These new exchange points will take a lot of pressure off the few exchange points now working. The primary reason for this long background and explanation is to let you know that there are likely to be disruptions in Internet service, either regional or national, that will affect your operations. It is important that you realize this and be prepared to cope with it. There are things beyond MRNet's control that will occur as these systems come together. These problems will be either partial or total as the systems come online and start carrying heavier traffic loads. There are likely also to be disruptions on the major NSP backbones as they become accustomed to carrying such large production loads. None of the equipment now in place has ever been put in large-scale use under such heavy traffic loads. The people who are operating these facilities, in some cases, are new at the job. The transition is not complete and a lot is yet to come as the NSPs, NAPs, Routing Arbiter system, etc. gets put into place and shaken out. As you can see, there is an immense potential for disasters all over the place, with no project manager, NAP operators who are inexperienced, NAP technology that is not ready for prime-time, NSPs who have varying levels of experience, network routers that are being stressed into new performance territory and several other trip points. However, all is not dark. This is, after all, the Internet - a system that grew up on lack of central authority and management. Indeed, the fact that we have traveled this far into the transition with only minor derailments is very encouraging and we will probably come through in the end with only minor scrapes and bruises. There are a lot of new people, but a lot of the people who built the Internet as we now know it are still in action and providing expert guidance. All players from the smallest state networks to the largest phone companies have a lot at stake in success. The Internet is a critically important resource and it will be made to work because so many need and want it to work. The mutually beneficial unmanaged cooperative culture of the Internet is strong (Use the Force, Luke.) and even the new players are moving according to its informal ethereal guidelines. Designers and operators have broken the rules about project management and system development, and the technology is quirky and unpredictable. But it is somehow coming together. It will likely be a rough and bumpy ride, hence the whimsy of the title, and we should be prepared for that. It might take six months to a year to feel a new sense of stability and reliability, but it will be worth it. This new structure will provide a new basis for the growth of the Internet that we may not be able to imagine yet. If you are willing to hang on with us, we'll do our best to get you through. If you have any questions or would like additional background details, please write or call me directly or any of the MRNet engineering staff. Dennis Fazio, executive director Minnesota Regional Network (612) 342-2570 dfazio () MR Net ------------------------ Forwarded to TELECOM Digest by: Kelly Breit President and CEO ITE/Netalliance, Inc. 6009 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 103 Minneapolis, MN 55416-1623 612-542-9440 612-542-9341 Fax
Current thread:
- Changes to the Internet Going on Now (telecom digest) Dave Farber (Mar 31)