CANARIE “CA*net 4 Customer Empowered Networking”

1. CANARIE “CA*net 4Customer Empowered Networking” http://www.canarie.ca http://www.canet3.net Bill.St.Arnaud@canarie.ca Tel: +1.613.785.0426

2. CANARIE Inc • Mission: To facilitate the development of Canada’s communications infrastructure and stimulate next generation products, applications and services • Canadian equivalent to Internet 2 and NGI • private-sector led, not-for-profit consortium • consortium formed 1993 • federal funding of $300m (1993-99) • total project costs estimated over $600 M • currently over 140 members; 21 Board members

3. The Context • Telecom market trapped in a nuclear winter with no end in sight • Bankrupt CLECs • Failed wireless companies • Troubled ILECs • Huge over capacity and financial bubble • The promise of de-regulation and competition are fading • Return to a healthy and profitable industry is a long way off • But despite all the gloom - there is a glimmer of hope in a new business model that may return the industry to profitability…..

4. Customer Owned Networks • The customer owns the infrastructure (dark fiber, switches and wavelengths) while the carrier provides the service and network management • Relieves the carrier of huge capital cost of infrastructure and gives customer greater flexibility in choice of service provider and control of the network • Very similar parallel to evolution of computer industry from the centrally managed time share of the 1960s to the customer owned mini-computer of the 70s and the PC of the 80s • Today telecom is largely a service industry much like time share computing of the 60s • Asset based telecom puts customer in control and ownership of the network • Asset based telecom started with the same people who brought you the Internet – our universities and research centers

5. Customer owned networks • Most Canadian universities and research centers own and control local loop dark fiber • Many regional networks also have their own fiber networks • BCnet, Netera, RISQ, ORION, ACORN • On a national basis CA*net 4 in Atlantic Canada • CANARIE will own the fiber and equipment and operate infrastructure as a condominium • Other organizations can buy into condominium • Group Telecom (Chapter 11 CLEC) will operate and manage the equipment under contract to the condominium association • CANARIE gets 16 wavelengths, carrier gets 16 wavelengths to sell managed services or to other condominium owners • If GT goes bankrupt, condominium association can find another company to manage the network

6. OC-48 RISQ Fiber Network Network 450 Km OC-12 MAN Scale 100 Km 250 Km Dark fiber Leased bandw.

7. Level 3 provides dark fiber for California Research Network

8. BOEING BUILDS PRIVATE NATIONWIDE OPTICAL NETWORK Boeing awarded an estimated US$20 million contract to Nortel Networks to build a private nationwide optical network based on DWDM and next generation SONET. Plans call for the deployment of OPTera Long Haul 1600 Optical Line Systems and OPTera Metro 3500 Multiservice Platform in multiple cities across the country. http://www.nortelnetworks.com/corporate/news/newsreleases/2002c/07_23_02_boeing.html

9. Circuit Switched Networks!! • Recent research from Dr. Malathi Veeraraghavan – NY Polytechnic • With hardware signaling, even at low RT propagation delay and long-path environments, Circuit Switched does better • 3.5 times lower delay at a 50ms prop. delay at 1Gbps for a 20MB file • Zing: a transport protocol that uses an “end-to-end” circuit in conjunction with TCP/IP path • Circuit switching not inherently bad • The telco business/engineering model has given CS a bad name • Can we take attributes and benefits of connectionless network like Internet, particularly end 2 end principle, and apply to CS networks?

10. The Problem with CS • Current optical switched circuits are “edge to edge” within a single carrier cloud • Any changes to circuit in terms of bandwidth or topology requires release of current circuit and establishment of new circuit • Customer cannot make autonomous topology or bandwidth changes or cross connect to another circuit within the carrier cloud • No inter-domain optical routing protocol • Customer cannot set up an end to end wavelength across multiple domains • No optical services for end2end light path across the campus/enterprise and across the carrier cloud • All current optical services are based on a client –server model • No ability to exchange wavelengths and services on a peer to peer basis

11. Approaches to Circuit Switching • Two solutions: • Flow switching (e.g Ipsilon, ATM) • Application switching • Flow switching has major limitations: • Out of packet sequence problems on initiation of flow • Detecting beginning and ending of long flows requires a lot of packet sniffing, timers and state • Difficult to setup across interdomain networks • Application switching • Allows application to direct flow to dedicated channel e.g GridFTP • Allows OS bypass and large MTU and non TCP for greater efficiency • Allows web service interface for signal and setup of dedicated path

12. The Future -CA*net 4? • Funded by Gov’t of Canada for $110m – now fully operational • A network of point to point condominium wavelengths • Universities and researcher own and control their own lightpaths or wavelengths and associated cross connects on each switch • All lightpaths terminate at switches where condominium owner can manage their own portion of the switch • add/drop STS channel or lightpaths • cross connect to another condominium owner’s STS channels or wavelengths • Web service architecture for management of optical networks • Plan to use OGSA for optical management • Owners of wavelengths determine topology and routing of their particular light paths • Condominium owner can recursively sub partition their wavelengths and give ownership to other entities • Wavelengths become objects complete with polymorphism, inheritance, classes, etc – Object Oriented Networking

13. CA*net 4 Architecture CANARIE GigaPOP ORAN DWDM Carrier DWDM Edmonton Saskatoon St. John’s Calgary Regina Quebec Winnipeg Charlottetown Thunder Bay Montreal Victoria Ottawa Vancouver Fredericton Halifax Boston Seattle Chicago New York CA*net 4 node) Toronto Possible future CA*net 4 node Windsor

14. Subtended GbE to local GigaPOP OSPF OC192 Eastbound OC192 Westbound Customer A and sub- partition Grooming agents Standard CLI or TL1 interface Customer A signaling plane X X X Customer B signaling plane OBGP X Customer A Proxy Server Customer B Customer C signaling plane X OBGP Customer C CA*net 4 Proxy Server Signal Control Plane Agents Switch Agents Initial Version of Mini-IXExternal Proxy Server

15. LPO I/F LPO I/F LPO I/F LOS Server LOS Server LOS Server Example Local Border Router AS2 AS3 AS1 AS4 x.x.x.1 2 1 Destination LPO I/F End2End Lightpath Creation Agent 4 LOS Server LPO LPO LPO LPO LPO LPO LPO 3 5 LPO I/F LPO I/F LOS Server AS5 Registry LPO WSIL pointers, UDDI or IRR Advertises LPO between AS2 and AS4

16. Campus VLAN to OBGP Campus Border Router End user VLAN 1 3 802.1 p/q VLAN Server LPO I/F LPO I/F End2End Lightpath Creation Agent LOS Server LPO LPO 4 2 Inspection.wsil 2 1.Border Router advertises VLAN lightpath and external lightpath to GigaPOP 2. End user creates lightpath object linking 2 objects 3. End user (may) advertise newly created lightpath to other entities

17. OBGP • Proposed new protocol to allow customer owned wavelengths to interconnect to each other at an optical switch • Optical switch is in effect a mini-IX • Use establishment of BGP or peers for process to establish light path cross connects • Allows network admin to maintain routing policy on cross connect even though there may be a cut through path • Traditional BGP gives no indication of route congestion or QoS, but with DWDM wave lengths edge router will have a simple QoS path of guaranteed bandwidth • OBGP can use “optical” AS path to concatenate wavelengths across multiple AS to have continuous QoS path

18. The future?Self Organizing Networks- RPON Aggregator Switch ISP Passive Optical Splitter Neighborhood Node Active laser at customer premises Customer Controlled or Owned Fiber

19. Conclusion • The customer owns the infrastructure (dark fiber, switches and wavelengths) while the carrier provides the service and network management • Relieves the carrier of huge capital cost of infrastructure and gives customer greater flexibility in choice of service provider and control of the network • Universities and research networks are leading the way • Significant opportunity for Taiwan telecom and optical industry to develop the technologies required for customer owned network