# Presentation: 050219

## Report to ICFAFebruary 11, 2000Matthias Kasemann, FNAL

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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/performance

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## Performance

- Measurements from
- 28 monitors in 15 countries
- Over 500 remote hosts
- 72 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%)

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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 regions

- Monitoring region

- Remote region

- Within region (on diagonal) good to acceptable

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## European performance from U.S.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## E. Eur-ope Loss

- E. Eur-ope Loss

- Good
- Accept
- Poor
- V. poor

- Bad

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
Most v.poor to bad
Baltic States from US are v. poor, Balkans v. poor to bad (Croatia has an excellent national network OC155)
Czech republic & Slovakia better than most, also Roumania & Bulgaria
CH, DE,  & UK  have better connections to Russia than most 
Greece is about 2.7%
Croatia has excelle nt national network (OC3/155Mbps)

## Russia

- ESnet – NSk good, ESnet – ITEP & IHEP improved with new satellite
- Canada & Edu bad all over
- DESY, CERN improved to acceptable to ITEP, IHEP, NSK with new
- satellite, Dubna still v. poor to bad, UK poor to ITEP & NSK
- KEK good to NSk, v. poor to ITEP

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## Europe seen from U.S.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
Grey indicates country has a site that is a collaborator in one of the major HENP experiments: Atlas, BaBar, Belle, CDF, CMS, D0, RHIC & ZEUS
White is a country that has sites that are monitored but is not a major HENP experiment collaborator.
Green has no sites that are monitored and is not a major HENP  collaborator.

## India / Mumbai / TIFR

- ESnet acceptable, Brazil, E. Europe/Russia poor to bad
- Got 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

- Just added as
- beacon site

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
Stanford poor performance (vs. SLAC & CMU) maybe due to BBN routing to Cable & Wireless routing

## E. Asia

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

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

- Bad (> 12%)

- Japan good to acceptable to N. America & W. Europe
- S. America poor to all E. Asia
- Hong Kong & China similar (v. different routes)

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
HKT via Esnet to NY(CW) –SFO (CW) – HK
CN via Esnet to Chicago(STAR-TAP) – KEK - CN

## Asia seen from U.S.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
Best places are Singapore and Japan , followed by Formosa and Korea

## S. America

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

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

- Bad (> 12%)

**Generally poor to bad**
**Argentina is bad with everyone**
**Within Brazil & within Colombia, & Brazil to Colombia **
**is acceptable**
**Columbia looks like to be the best**

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## Latin America, Africa & Australasia

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## Bulk transfer - Performance Trends

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

- Note: E. Europe NOT catching up

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
Use formula (from “The Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance Algorithm” by Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi & Ott, ACM SIGCOMM, vol 27, number 3, July 1997) together with PingER measured RTT & loss from ESnet monitoring sites  to predict the maximum TCP bandwidth.

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of monitor-remote site pairs contributing to the points
ESnet to ESnet looks best, followed by Esnet to .edu, Canada.
Note that over an order of magnitude improvement in last 4 years for Esnet, .edu & Canada, main component comes from reductions in packet losses, but RTT has also improved due to faster links, increased switching (I.e. routes pass through fewer routers, and switches have lower latency)

## 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

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

**Notes:**
This slide identifies some problem areas recently identified by the SCIC.

The on diagonal elements are for trafiic that stays within a top level domain, often this means it stays within a single Network Service Provider (e.g. .uk to .uk stays within Janet). The on-diagonal elements generally have better performance, a reflection that it is good to reduce the number of NSPs crossed, and more generally that peering between NSPs is a critical  issue.

## 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

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## VRVS summary

- _Principal Investigator_: 	Caltech and ESnet
- _Collaborators_: 		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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000

## 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.

- ICFA, RAL                  M.Kasemann, FNAL

- February 11, 2000