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? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% T T A T T T T T A R H t C T S t t N t R e e e e T E N E E E E E E N - I E C n C R n n n I R E N N N N N N N R H N E A T T F C O A N I T R U E S U U L R T d R E A I R G F C W A I A E e K E S F G S U N N H A R L G B U S C E E U S N R R U H 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
Core capacity, 2001 and 2002 Gb/s 0 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 capacity 2002 capacity 2001 FYRoMacedonia
Core capacity, 2002 and 2003 Gb/s 0 1 2 3 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Finland Hungary Spain Switzerland Portugal Austria Luxembourg Slovakia Croatia Poland Ireland Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Georgia capacity 2003 capacity 2002 FYRoMacedonia
the case of Spain • early 2002: star topology with 155 Mb to all regional centres; • 2003: backbone at 2.5 Gb.
Core capacity, 2001 and 2002 Gb/s 0 1 2 3 Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Finland Hungary Spain Switzerland Portugal Austria Luxembourg Slovakia Croatia Poland Ireland Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Georgia capacity 2003 capacity 2002 FYRoMacedonia
Core capacity on the network, 2003 Gb/s 0 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 capacity 2003 Lithuania Turkey Estonia Latvia Expon. (capacity 2003) Georgia FYRoMacedonia
External connections, January 2003 14000 Others 13000 Peering/Internet Exchanges 12000 Other NRENs 11000 GEANT 10000 9000 8000 Mb/s 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 t T t t C S M t t T T t S H R R A t e A N N C T T T N e e e e e e E E N E N C E n E I E C E R N n N I C N P N n R E F n B N O N N N u E E U N I N A T N A T D R U E C R S R I K d T R R d S D T E I R C P A E I L G A E E F A W A e E I E S R G A S H E N R L A A K C R L o S B E F G C E U O R U R N R N U H
Average external traffic load, January 2003 50 45 40 35 30 25 % 20 15 10 5 0 RENATER HUNGARNET SANET UKERNA EENet PSNC HEAnet SURFnet BELNET GARR CESNET URAN DFN CARNet GRNET ACOnet ARNES ULAKBIM AMREJ SWITCH RedIRIS 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) 12000 FCCN Portugal: connects 8600 primary schools, 10000 1700 secondary schools 8000 6000 GRNET Greece: connects 2746 primary schools, 4000 3664 secondary schools 2000 0 LATNET FUNET SANET UNINETT HUNGARNET LITNET UKERNA PSNC OSI-AF/Azerbaijan (AzNET) RHnet IUCC MARNet RENAM URAN HEAnet UL DoIT (LANET) ACOnet UzSciNet GCC SUNET RoEduNet GRENA DFN CARNet UNI-C BIHARNET BELNET AMREJ ULAKBIM NIC CERIST SURFnet RESTENA NCIRT (BASNET) CESNET GARR EENet RENATER ARNES GRNET FCCN SWITCH MARWAN RedIRIS Universities Institutes of higher/further education Research institutes Secondary schools Primary schools Libraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Government departments Others
1000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 Number of connected institutions (2) RHnet IUCC OSI-AF/Azerbaijan (AzNET) MARNet RENAM URAN HEAnet ACOnet GCC UzSciNet UL DoIT (LANET) SUNET SWITCH RoEduNet LATNET FUNET Universities Institutes of higher/further education Research institutes Secondary schools Primary schools Libraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Government departments Others 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
Number of connected institutions (3) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Estonia Lithuania France Hungary United Slovenia Kingdom 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 100 900 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Estonia Lithuania France Hungary United Slovenia Kingdom Total staff Universities Institutes of higher/further education Research institutes Secondary schools Primary schools Libraries Hospitals (other than University hospitals) Government departments Others
So, what explains it? Perhaps… Level Percentage of network levels paid through the NREN budget RENATER UKERNA External connections 100 100 NREN backbone 100 100 Access network 95 Metropolitan or regional 85 networks Campus LAN n/a
Bandwidth for Universities (1) ISDN or lower: up to 2 Mb/s: 0% * 30% ± the EU 9% Accession States 12% 37% Other countries 28% EU plus Norway and Switzerland, but minus Germany
Bandwidth for Universities (2) > 10 Mb, C 100 Mb : > 2 Mb, C 10 Mb: ± the EU 22% 23% Accession States 18% 18% Other countries 23% 14%
Bandwidth for Universities (3) D 1 Gb: > 100 Mb, < 1 Gb: 15% ± the EU 10% 12% 6% Accession States 10% 13% Other countries
Caveats and questions… • What is a University? • How many researchers are at those Universities? • How many students? • … and what do they need??
So, where is the ‘digital divide’? It is certainly between countries…. but just as much within countries! 0% 9% 12% 30% 37% 28%
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 response (still trying!) No contact
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 Monitoring the progress: the Compendium (TERENA) The fast train itself: GÉANT (DANTE) Preparing for the future: the SERENATE project (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
Recommend
More recommend
