Update on the TERENA Compendium, 2003 A talk about comparing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Update on the TERENA Compendium, 2003 A talk about comparing apples with oranges in the NREN world

TNC/CUC 2003, Session 7b4 Bert van Pinxteren, TERENA http://www.terena.nl/compendium

Compendium: product of the COM-REN project

• A project funded by the Information Society

Technologies Programme of the Commission of the European Communities.

• This presentation does not represent the opinion of the European Community; the European

Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing in this presentation.

• Compendium Review Panel: Lajos Bálint, Marko

Bonac, Urs Eppenberger, Sabine Jaume-Rajaonia, Mike Norris.

A message for our sponsors…

Total NREN budgets, EU and EFTA countries:

300 MEUR

… and what do they spend it on?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U K E R N A S W I T C H R H n e t L A T N E T C E S N E T S U N E T U N I N E T T U N I

• C

H U N G A R N E T B E L N E T F U N E T G R N E T R E S T E N A R e d I R I S S U R F n e t H E A n e t F C C N A C O n e t R E N A T E R G A R R

Transmission capacity Equipment (switches, routers etc.)

Structure of talk

• Some new data and trends:

– Core Capacity on the network; – Connectivity and traffic; – The projected spread of IPv6

• Apples and oranges: some data and their problems:

– Numbers of connected institutions; – Bandwidth for Universities; – Where is the ‘Digital Divide’?

• Questionnaire mongering
• Areas for further consideration

0.5 1 1.5 2 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Finland Hungary Spain Switzerland Portugal Austria Luxembourg Slovakia Croatia Poland Ireland Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Georgia FYRoMacedonia

Gb/s

capacity 2002 capacity 2001

Core capacity, 2001 and 2002

1 2 3 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Finland Hungary Spain Switzerland Portugal Austria Luxembourg Slovakia Croatia Poland Ireland Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Georgia FYRoMacedonia

Gb/s

capacity 2003 capacity 2002

Core capacity, 2002 and 2003

the case of Spain

• early 2002: star topology with 155 Mb to all regional

centres;

• 2003: backbone at 2.5 Gb.

1 2 3 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Finland Hungary Spain Switzerland Portugal Austria Luxembourg Slovakia Croatia Poland Ireland Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Georgia FYRoMacedonia

Gb/s

capacity 2003 capacity 2002

Core capacity, 2001 and 2002

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Finland Hungary Spain Switzerland Portugal Austria Luxembourg Slovakia Croatia Poland Ireland Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Georgia FYRoMacedonia

Gb/s

capacity 2003

• Expon. (capacity 2003)

Core capacity on the network, 2003

External connections, January 2003

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 R

• E

d u N e t L I T N E T R E S T E N A F R E E n e t E E N e t I U C C A R N E S U L A K B I M F C C N C A R N e t A C O n e t G R N E T R I P N H U N G A R N E T P S N C S A N E T H E A n e t R e d I R I S C E S N E T S W I T C H B E L N E T G A R R R E N A T E R D F N U K E R N A N O R D U n e t

Mb/s

Others Peering/Internet Exchanges Other NRENs GEANT

Average external traffic load, January 2003

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 HEAnet SWITCH RedIRIS SURFnet BELNET GARR CESNET RENATER SANET HUNGARNET UKERNA URAN DFN CARNet GRNET EENet PSNC ACOnet ARNES ULAKBIM AMREJ % Average incoming traffic load, January 2003 Average outgoing traffic load, January 2003

IPv6: the 6net countries

IPv6: predicted implementation

Between now and 2005 Later or undecided Between now and 2005 Later or undecided No info provided

Number of connected institutions (1)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

RHnet IUCC OSI-AF/Azerbaijan (AzNET) MARNet RENAM URAN HEAnet ACOnet GCC UzSciNet UL DoIT (LANET) SUNET SWITCH RoEduNet LATNET FUNET DFN GRENA CARNet UNI-C BELNET BIHARNET MARWAN AMREJ NIC ULAKBIM CERIST SURFnet RESTENA SANET UNINETT CESNET RedIRIS GARR NCIRT (BASNET) EENet LITNET RENATER HUNGARNET UKERNA ARNES PSNC GRNET FCCN Universities Institutes of higher/further education Research institutes Secondary schools Primary schools Libraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Government departments Others

FCCN Portugal: connects 8600 primary schools, 1700 secondary schools GRNET Greece: connects 2746 primary schools, 3664 secondary schools

Number of connected institutions (2)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 RHnet IUCC OSI-AF/Azerbaijan (AzNET) MARNet RENAM URAN HEAnet ACOnet GCC UzSciNet UL DoIT (LANET) SUNET SWITCH RoEduNet LATNET FUNET DFN GRENA CARNet UNI-C BELNET BIHARNET MARWAN AMREJ NIC ULAKBIM CERIST SURFnet RESTENA SANET UNINETT CESNET RedIRIS GARR NCIRT (BASNET) EENet LITNET RENATER HUNGARNET UKERNA ARNES PSNC Others Government departments Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Libraries Primary schools Secondary schools Research institutes Institutes of higher/further education Universities

Number of connected institutions (3)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Estonia Lithuania France Hungary United Kingdom Slovenia Universities Institutes of higher/further education Research institutes Secondary schools Primary schools Libraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Government departments Others

Connected institutions and staff

900 Estonia Lithuania France Hungary United Kingdom Slovenia Universities Institutes of higher/further education Research institutes Secondary schools Primary schools Libraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Government departments Others

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Total staff

So, what explains it? Perhaps…

n/a Campus LAN 85 Metropolitan or regional networks 95 Access network 100 100 NREN backbone 100 100 External connections UKERNA RENATER Percentage of network levels paid through the NREN budget Level

EU plus Norway and Switzerland, but minus Germany

Bandwidth for Universities (1)

ISDN or lower: ± the EU

0%

Accession States

9%

Other countries

12%

up to 2 Mb/s:

37% 28% 30%

*

Bandwidth for Universities (2)

± the EU Accession States Other countries > 10 Mb, C 100 Mb :

23% 18% 14% 22% 18% 23%

> 2 Mb, C 10 Mb:

Bandwidth for Universities (3)

± the EU Accession States Other countries D 1 Gb: > 100 Mb, < 1 Gb:

10% 15% 6% 12% 13% 10%

Caveats and questions…

• What is a University?
• How many researchers are at those Universities?
• How many students?
• … and what do they need??

but just as much within countries! It is certainly between countries….

So, where is the ‘digital divide’?

0% 9% 12% 37% 28% 30%

Questionnaire mongering: It’s fun to send questionnaires!

• For IPv6
• For SERENATE
• For … ?

But trying to get answers is a different story!

Compendium 2003: responses received (deadline: 7 March)

By 15 March By 15 April Too late No contact No response (still trying!)

NRNs Feedback

• Request sent on 16th December 2002
• 11 of 28 NRNs have replied to our

questionnaire

• From the remaining:

– 4 NRNs present in today – 13 NRNs with no answer –

Marian Garcia (marian.garcia@dante.org.uk)

Why don’t we…

• try to make the Compendium questionnaire shorter;
• but make it the ONE questionnaire that everybody

answers;

• and tries to answer completely;
• work more closely with other projects, so that more

people get more answers but with fewer questionnaires!

Role of the Compendium

The fast train itself: GÉANT (DANTE) Preparing for the future: the SERENATE project (TERENA) Monitoring the progress: the Compendium (TERENA)

Developing the argument…

Dany Vandromme, RENATER: “As example, I would mention the Compendium (…), which turned [out] to be extremely useful to RENATER, to provide my national authorities with (…)”

Developing the argument further

• Can we develop some (dynamic) norms for what

should be available for a student, a professor, a researcher? Have NRENs already done this?

• What are the ‘indicators of tomorrow’?

But before that…

• We need to try to double-check the data
• Need your ideas

Check it out: http://www.terena.nl/compendium