DOCSLIB.ORG

The Networking Field Does Not Have a Shared Vision of the Future Today

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Networking Field Does Not Have a Shared Vision of the Future Today Data Communications Needs: Advancing the Frontiers of Science Through Advanced Networks and Networking Research An ASCAC Report: Ellen Stechel, Chair Bill Wing, Co-Chair February 2008 Extending the Frontiers of Science through Advanced Networks and Networking Research FINAL DRAFT: 12 FEB 2008 Report of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee Networking Subpanel Data Communication Needs: Advancing the Frontiers of Science Through Advanced Networks and Networking Research ASCAC Networking Panel Members ELLEN B. STECHEL, Sandia National Laboratories (Chair) WILLIAM R. WING, Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Co-Chair) F. RONALD BAILEY, Advanced Management Technology, Inc. JAMES CORONES, Krell Institute IAN FOSTER, Argonne National Laboratory HARVEY NEWMAN, California Institute of Technology GWENDOLYN HUNTOON, Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center LARRY RAHN, Sandia National Laboratories HORST SIMON, Berkeley National Laboratory JERRY SOBIESKI, Mid-Atlantic Crossroads Submitted to the ASCAC on 12 February 2008 for consideration as a: Report of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee March 2008 Page 2 of 58 ASCAC – February 08 Data Communication Needs Extending the Frontiers of Science through Advanced Networks and Networking Research Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................5 2 CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................................8 2.1 THE CHARGE ..................................................................................................................................8 2.1.1 As Written.............................................................................................................................................8 2.1.2 As Interpreted........................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Background: Networks and Networking Research within SC ....................................................10 2.2.1 Networking Research..........................................................................................................................10 2.2.2 Deployment of Advanced Networks for DOE Science.......................................................................11 3 FORCES and TRENDS................................................................................................................16 3.1 Trends in Computation ...................................................................................................................16 3.2 Trends in Collaborations and Virtual Communities ....................................................................16 3.3 Trends in Data..................................................................................................................................17 3.4 Trends in Society..............................................................................................................................18 3.5 Shifting Paradigm in Scientific Research ......................................................................................18 3.6 Summary...........................................................................................................................................19 4 Key Findings..................................................................................................................................21 4.1 ESnet’s Exemplary Job ...................................................................................................................21 4.1.1 Findings ..............................................................................................................................................21 4.1.2 Basis....................................................................................................................................................21 4.1.3 Discussion...........................................................................................................................................22 4.1.4 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................22 4.1.5 Challenges to Implementing the Recommendations...........................................................................22 4.2 Dependence of Petascale Facilities on High-Performance Networks ..........................................24 4.2.1 Finding................................................................................................................................................24 4.2.2 Basis....................................................................................................................................................24 4.2.3 Discussion...........................................................................................................................................25 4.2.4 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................27 4.3 Advanced Networks as Enablers of New Modes of Scientific Inquiry........................................28 4.3.1 Findings ..............................................................................................................................................28 4.3.2 Basis....................................................................................................................................................29 4.3.3 Discussion...........................................................................................................................................29 4.3.4 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................29 4.3.5 Challenges to Implementing the Recommendations...........................................................................30 4.4 Petascale Facilities as a System of Systems....................................................................................33 4.4.1 Findings ..............................................................................................................................................33 4.4.2 Basis....................................................................................................................................................33 4.4.3 Discussion:..........................................................................................................................................34 4.4.4 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................34 4.5 Research and the “Valley of Death”...............................................................................................35 4.5.1 Findings ..............................................................................................................................................35 4.5.2 Basis....................................................................................................................................................35 Data Communication Needs ASCAC – February 08 Page 3 of 58 Extending the Frontiers of Science through Advanced Networks and Networking Research 4.5.3 Discussion:..........................................................................................................................................35 4.5.4 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................36 4.6 Need for a Coherent Networking Research Program...................................................................38 4.6.1 Findings ..............................................................................................................................................38 4.6.2 Basis....................................................................................................................................................38 4.6.3 Discussion...........................................................................................................................................40 4.6.4 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................41 4.6.5 Challenges to Implementing the Recommendation.............................................................................41 5 CLOSING REMARKS.................................................................................................................43 APPENDICES A. The Charge Letter............................................................................................................................44 B. Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................45 C. Subpanel Biographies ......................................................................................................................45 D. ASCAC Networking Subcommittee Meeting April, 2007 ............................................................49 E. Selected References..........................................................................................................................53 F. Abbreviations/Acronyms.................................................................................................................54
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 2006 Steering Committee Materials
    Utah Education Network Steering Committee June 16, 2006 U TAH EDUCATION NETWORK S TEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA JUNE 16, 2006 Committee of the Whole / Business Meeting 9:00 a.m.- 11:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Tab 31 FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET – ACTION . 1 FY 2007 UEN BUDGET - DRAFT . 7 Tab 1 UTAH EDUCATION NETWORK FY 2007 STRATEGIC PLAN – ACTION. 9 UTAH EDUCATION NETWORK FY2007 PLAN - DRAFT . 11 Tab 2 STEERING COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, MEETING FORMAT AND . 25 PROPOSED MEETING DATES – ACTION Tab 4 POLICY 2.1: NETWORK CONNECTIVITY CHARGES – ACTION . 27 UTAH EDUCATION NETWORK 2.1 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY CHARGES . 31 UTAH EDUCATION NETWORK FEE STRUCTURE . 37 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY CHARGES DECISION TREE . 39 Tab 5 NATIONAL LAMBDARAIL (NLR) MEDIA RELEASE – DISCUSSION . 41 NATIONAL LAMBDARAIL (NLR) MEDIA RELEASE . 43 Tab 6 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES . 45 Tab 7 OTHER . 53 11:00 a.m.- Instructional Services Subcommittee 12:00 p.m. Tab 7 END-OF-LIFE POLICY FOR WEB SERVICES – ACTION . 55 i Tab 8 INTERNET SAFETY PROJECT – ACTION . 57 Tab 9 HIGHER EDUCATION LEARNING OBJECTS MEETING REPORT – DISCUSSION . 59 Tab 10 TELESCOPE USERS GROUP MEETING – DISCUSSION . 61 Tab 11 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ADVISORY . 63 COMMITTEE REPORTS – DISCUSSION PUBLIC EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT . 65 HIGHER EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT . 69 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Technical Services Subcommittee Agenda Tab 12 STATE OF UTAH REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS (SURIN) – ACTION . 73 STATE OF UTAH REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS (SURIN) . 75 Please place these materials in your Steering Committee Binder. ii UEN Steering Committee - June 2006 C OMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE T AB 31 FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET – ACTION Issue The FY 2007 UEN Budget is ready for fi nal review and approval by the Steering Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Telematics Chapter 3: Physical Layer
    Telematics User Server watching with video Chapter 3: Physical Layer video clip clips Application Layer Application Layer Presentation Layer Presentation Layer Session Layer Session Layer Transport Layer Transport Layer Network Layer Network Layer Network Layer Data Link Layer Data Link Layer Data Link Layer Physical Layer Physical Layer Physical Layer Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jochen H. Schiller Computer Systems and Telematics (CST) Institute of Computer Science Freie Universität Berlin http://cst.mi.fu-berlin.de Contents ● Design Issues ● Theoretical Basis for Data Communication ● Analog Data and Digital Signals ● Data Encoding ● Transmission Media ● Guided Transmission Media ● Wireless Transmission (see Mobile Communications) ● The Last Mile Problem ● Multiplexing ● Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) ● Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) ● Mobile Telephone System Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jochen H. Schiller ▪ cst.mi.fu-berlin.de ▪ Telematics ▪ Chapter 3: Physical Layer 3.2 Design Issues Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jochen H. Schiller ▪ cst.mi.fu-berlin.de ▪ Telematics ▪ Chapter 3: Physical Layer 3.3 Design Issues ● Connection parameters ● mechanical OSI Reference Model ● electric and electronic Application Layer ● functional and procedural Presentation Layer ● More detailed ● Physical transmission medium (copper cable, Session Layer optical fiber, radio, ...) ● Pin usage in network connectors Transport Layer ● Representation of raw bits (code, voltage,…) Network Layer ● Data rate ● Control of bit flow: Data Link Layer ● serial or parallel transmission of bits Physical Layer ● synchronous or asynchronous transmission ● simplex, half-duplex, or full-duplex transmission mode Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Jochen H. Schiller ▪ cst.mi.fu-berlin.de ▪ Telematics ▪ Chapter 3: Physical Layer 3.4 Design Issues Transmitter Receiver Source Transmission System Destination NIC NIC Input Abcdef djasdja dak jd ashda kshd akjsd asdkjhasjd as kdjh askjda Univ.-Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Preface Towards the Reality of Petabit Networks
    Preface Towards the Reality of Petabit Networks Yukou Mochida Member of the Board Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. The telecommunications world is shifting drastically from voice oriented telephone networks to data oriented multimedia networks based on the Internet protocol (IP). Telecommunication carriers are positively extending their service attributes to new applications, and suppliers are changing their business areas and models, conforming to the radical market changes. The Internet, which was originally developed for correspondence among researchers, has evolved into a global communi- cations platform. Improvements in security technology are encouraging businesses to integrate the Internet into their intranets, and the eco- nomic world and basic life styles are being changed by the many new Internet-based services, for example, electronic commerce (EC), that have become available. This revolutionary change in telecommunications seems to come mainly from three motive forces. The first is the information society that has come into being with the wide and rapid deployment of person- al computers and mobile communications. The second is the worldwide deregulation and the resulting competitive telecommunications envi- ronment, which facilitates active investment in the growing market to construct huge-capacity networks for exploding traffic. The third is photonic networks based on wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) technology, which can greatly increase the communication capacity and drastically decrease the transmission cost per channel. Photonic net- works are attractive because they can also radically improve node throughput and offer transparency and flexibility while accommodating different signal formats and protocols, expandability for cost-effective gradual deployment, and high reliability, which is strongly required for a secure information society.
    [Show full text]
  • How Many Bits Are in a Byte in Computer Terms
    How Many Bits Are In A Byte In Computer Terms Periosteal and aluminum Dario memorizes her pigeonhole collieshangie count and nagging seductively. measurably.Auriculated and Pyromaniacal ferrous Gunter Jessie addict intersperse her glockenspiels nutritiously. glimpse rough-dries and outreddens Featured or two nibbles, gigabytes and videos, are the terms bits are in many byte computer, browse to gain comfort with a kilobyte est une unité de armazenamento de armazenamento de almacenamiento de dados digitais. Large denominations of computer memory are composed of bits, Terabyte, then a larger amount of nightmare can be accessed using an address of had given size at sensible cost of added complexity to access individual characters. The binary arithmetic with two sets render everything into one digit, in many bits are a byte computer, not used in detail. Supercomputers are its back and are in foreign languages are brainwashed into plain text. Understanding the Difference Between Bits and Bytes Lifewire. RAM, any sixteen distinct values can be represented with a nibble, I already love a Papst fan since my hybrid head amp. So in ham of transmitting or storing bits and bytes it takes times as much. Bytes and bits are the starting point hospital the computer world Find arrogant about the Base-2 and bit bytes the ASCII character set byte prefixes and binary math. Its size can vary depending on spark machine itself the computing language In most contexts a byte is futile to bits or 1 octet In 1956 this leaf was named by. Pages Bytes and Other Units of Measure Robelle. This function is used in conversion forms where we are one series two inputs.
    [Show full text]
  • Etir Code Lists
    eTIR Code Lists Code lists CL01 Equipment size and type description code (UN/EDIFACT 8155) Code specifying the size and type of equipment. 1 Dime coated tank A tank coated with dime. 2 Epoxy coated tank A tank coated with epoxy. 6 Pressurized tank A tank capable of holding pressurized goods. 7 Refrigerated tank A tank capable of keeping goods refrigerated. 9 Stainless steel tank A tank made of stainless steel. 10 Nonworking reefer container 40 ft A 40 foot refrigerated container that is not actively controlling temperature of the product. 12 Europallet 80 x 120 cm. 13 Scandinavian pallet 100 x 120 cm. 14 Trailer Non self-propelled vehicle designed for the carriage of cargo so that it can be towed by a motor vehicle. 15 Nonworking reefer container 20 ft A 20 foot refrigerated container that is not actively controlling temperature of the product. 16 Exchangeable pallet Standard pallet exchangeable following international convention. 17 Semi-trailer Non self propelled vehicle without front wheels designed for the carriage of cargo and provided with a kingpin. 18 Tank container 20 feet A tank container with a length of 20 feet. 19 Tank container 30 feet A tank container with a length of 30 feet. 20 Tank container 40 feet A tank container with a length of 40 feet. 21 Container IC 20 feet A container owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary, with a length of 20 feet. 22 Container IC 30 feet A container owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary, with a length of 30 feet. 23 Container IC 40 feet A container owned by InterContainer, a European railway subsidiary, with a length of 40 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • National Lambdarail (NLR) and Potential Merger with Internet2/Abilene Unidata Seminar Marla Meehl 24 August 2005 Outline
    National LambdaRail (NLR) and Potential Merger with Internet2/Abilene Unidata Seminar Marla Meehl 24 August 2005 Outline • Overview of NLR and capabilities • Potential NLR/I2 Merge – Context • Group A • Group B – Merger process • Steps to date • Discussion National LambdaRail Update • Layer 1 update – 50% of resources dedicated to research • Layer1 Phase II Deployment Schedule • Layer 2 design • Layer 3 design National LambdaRail Update Phase I Layer 1 Deployment SEA 8 8 POR 8 8 BOI 8 4 STA 4 8 OGD 8 8 PIT 8 DEN 8 8 8 KAN CLE 8 SVL 8 8 8 CHI 8 8 8 8 WDC RAL 8 LAX 8 8 8 ATL 8 JAC Level3 fiber Other fiber 8 Cisco 15808 terminal 8 Cisco 15808 OADM 4 Cisco 15454 terminal 4 Cisco 15454 OADM National LambdaRail Update Phase II Layer I Deployment SYR 4 4 4 4 NYC OGD 4 4 DEN CLE KAN SLC 4 4 4 4 WDC LAX 4 RAT 4 4 TUL PHO 4 ALB 4 4 4 4 4 DAL ELP 4 4 4 PEN JAC 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Level3 fiber SAA 4 4 BAT WilTel fiber HOU 8 Cisco 15808 terminal 8 Cisco 15808 OADM 4 Cisco 15454 terminal 4 Cisco 15454 OADM NATIONAL LAMBDARAIL - PHASE 2 DEPLOYMENT FINALIZED SCHEDULE as of 2005-03-16 OADM / Pa ss Install Test OLA Regen Terminal Thru Install Completio Test Completion Provider Segment Sites Sites Sites Sites Start Date n Date Start Date Date Level 3 & ? WilTel Ogden to Salt Lake City 1 1 * * ** ** a1 WilTel Houston to San Antonio 5 2 06/23/05 06/30/05 a2 WilTel San Antonio to El Paso 14 1 07/05/05 07/20/05 08/09/05 08/17/05 a5 WilTel El Paso to Phoenix 10 1 07/19/05 07/30/05 a6 WilTel Phoenix to LA 11 1 1 07/29/05 08/12/05 10/07/05 10/15/05 a3 Level 3 El Paso
    [Show full text]
  • The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet
    The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:49:54 UTC Contents Articles History of the Internet 1 Barry Appelman 26 Paul Baran 28 Vint Cerf 33 Danny Cohen (engineer) 41 David D. Clark 44 Steve Crocker 45 Donald Davies 47 Douglas Engelbart 49 Charles M. Herzfeld 56 Internet Engineering Task Force 58 Bob Kahn 61 Peter T. Kirstein 65 Leonard Kleinrock 66 John Klensin 70 J. C. R. Licklider 71 Jon Postel 77 Louis Pouzin 80 Lawrence Roberts (scientist) 81 John Romkey 84 Ivan Sutherland 85 Robert Taylor (computer scientist) 89 Ray Tomlinson 92 Oleg Vishnepolsky 94 Phil Zimmermann 96 References Article Sources and Contributors 99 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 102 Article Licenses License 103 History of the Internet 1 History of the Internet The history of the Internet began with the development of electronic computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Through the Myths to Reality: a Future-Proof View Of
    Breaking Through the Myths to Reality A Future-Proof View of Fiber Optic Inspection and Cleaning Dear Viewer: As presented at BICSI® in February- 2018, this seminar has video and animations that Edward J. Forrest, Jr. are not available as a .pdf file. If you would like the RMS(RaceMarketingServices) original version, please contact BICSI or the author. Bringing Ideas Together Caution: This Presentation is going to be controversial! IT IS BASED ON 2,500 YEARS OF SCIENCE AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 2 Fact OR FICTION of Fiber Optic Cleaning and Inspection This seminarWE WILL mayDISCUSS contradictAND currentDEFINE: trends ➢ There➢ Cleaningand are what OTHER you’ve is notWAYS been important…BESIDES taught. VIDEO ➢ ➢➢“Automatic99.9%Debris➢ ➢ExistingA “Reagent FiberonS Detection” CIENTIFICthe standards, Optic surface Grade” ConnectorR isEALITY of such“good Isopropanola fiber… as enough”.is optic a is IECconnector“Pass 61300Let’sanI NSPECTIONanythingeffective- Fail”separate- 3surface-35, is is bettereasy are Factsfiberto is “Best determine thantwoto from optic understand nothing!-dimensional Practice”Fiction cleaner What we’veTwoif the ( ALL-Dimensional connector) been taught/bought/soldand is Structure“clean” over the last 30+Myth yearsfrom may“diameter”. Scientific not be the same Reality thing! 3 Fact OR FICTION of Fiber Optic Cleaning and Inspection ➢ A Fiber Optic Connector is a Two-Dimensional Structure ➢ 99.9% “Reagent Grade” Isopropanol is an effective fiber optic cleaner ➢ Cleaning is not important… anything is better than nothing! ➢ There are OTHER WAYS BESIDES VIDEO INSPECTION to determine if the connector is “clean” ➢ Debris on the surface of a fiber optic connector surface is two-dimensional “diameter”. ➢ “Automatic Detection” is “good enough”.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisianaepscor
    Volume 2 Louisiana Number 5 EPSCoR May 2005 Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research LONI/NLR Fast Becoming a Reality The first tangible step linking Louisiana to the National LambdaRail (NLR) and into the exclusive cadre of U.S research universities connected to the ultra-high speed research network is scheduled to take place in July. That’s when the hardware node that will connect Louisiana to NLR will be installed on Third Street in downtown Baton Rouge. The goal is to have the State’s eight research institutions connected to NLR by January 2006, National LambdaRail according to Mike Abbiatti, Board of Regents’ Network associate commissioner for information and learning technology. connecting research universities in five cities are scheduled for installation in August-September. The first full East-West phase of the NLR deployment – between Denver and Chicago, Atlanta and Jacksonville, At the statewide September 2004 LONI Forum, Governor and Seattle and Denver – was completed in September Kathleen Blanco announced the State is committing $40 2004. Louisiana is included in the second phase, which will million to LONI. The two-day forum was sponsored by the also include universities from Texas, Oklahoma, New Office of the Governor, Board of Regents’ Louisiana Mexico, Arizona, Utah and New York. The Baton Rouge EPSCoR, and the LSU Center for Computation & Technology (CCT) at LSU. NLR node is a critical link to the Gulf Coast states between Houston and Jacksonville. “The LONI/NLR relationship will make Louisiana a national The Board of Regents recently joined NLR, a consortium of player in high-speed networking and Grid computing, which research universities and technology companies deploying some experts consider the most important breakthrough for a nationwide networking infrastructure supporting research research since the Internet,” says Abbiatti, Board of in science, engineering, health care, and education.
    [Show full text]
  • National Lambdarail Launches Transit and Peering Project
    NATIONAL LAMBDARAIL LAUNCHES TRANSIT AND PEERING PROJECT Five NLR Members Begin Project to Improve Network Performance and Reduce Costs of Internet Services Cypress, Calif. - April 20, 2006 - National LambdaRail (NLR), a consortium of leading U.S. research universities and private sector technology companies, today announced that it has inaugurated a project to provision an intelligently managed nationwide peering and transit program. The initial participants include NLR members: the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), Front Range GigaPoP (FRGP), Mid-Atlantic Terascale Partnership (MATP), Pacific Northwest Gigapop (PNWGP) and Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC). Called National TransitRail, the project aims to use commodity and peering traffic to improve network performance and reduce the overall cost of Internet services to NLR members. In keeping with NLR's distributive management philosophy, Pacific Wave is managing this project on behalf of NLR. Pacific Wave will utilize expertise developed in its state-of-the-art West Coast distributed peering exchange facility that also provides US-based exchange services for Pacific Rim research and education networks. Utilizing NLR's nationwide network fiber and optronics infrastructure at layer 2 and layer 3, the initial NLR participants are working to efficiently direct traffic as quickly as possible to the target network/organization, reducing the number of 'hops' required for the data to get to its destination. The team is also investigating the balance between peering sessions and transit routes at geographically dispersed locations. "NLR's national footprint and large traffic flows will help drive many larger-scale peering relationships over time," said Tom West, NLR President. "We believe that it is time for the research and education community to further exploit the reliability and redundancy that a national peering and transit infrastructure affords.
    [Show full text]
  • National Lambdarail : Press Releases 10/5/10 7:34 PM
    National LambdaRail : Press Releases 10/5/10 7:34 PM RSS The Network for Advanced Research and Innovation Owned by the U.S. research and education community, NLR is the ultra high-performance, 12,000-mile innovation platform for a wide range of academic disciplines and public-private Search partnerships. Learn more... HOME ABOUT US MEMBERS SERVICES RESEARCH SUPPORT PRESS ROOM CONTACT US PRESS ROOM Press Room Press Releases Press Resources NASA High-End Computing Testbed Runs Over National LambdaRail (NLR) Featured Research Past Featured Research NLR and National Broadband Optimizing Data Flows over 10, 40, and 100 Gbps Networks NLR in the News Featured Research Cypress, CA, September 9, 2010 -- NASA has started to conduct end-to-end throughput performance benchmarking as part of its High-End Computing 20, 40 & 100 Gigabits per second (Gbps) Network Testbed initiative over a 4x10 Gigabit Ethernet (GE) infrastructure between Chicago and McLean, Virginia, deployed by National LambdaRail (NLR), the coast-to-coast, high-performance network owned by the U.S. research and education community. Enabling time-efficient data flows over wide areas is a persistent issue impacting many advanced research disciplines. Even over 10 Gbps networks, throughput is often only about 10 Megabits per second (Mbps), so copying a single 10 Gbps file typically takes as long as 17 minutes. The objective of the NASA initiative is to optimize WAN file transfer over 10 Gbps as well as over emerging 40 and 100 Gbps networks by determining data transfer utilities and protocols that enable higher throughput and by preparing applicable testbeds to identify bottlenecks and explore possible solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Internet Began with the Development of Electronic Computers in the 1950S
    The history of the Internet began with the development of electronic computers in the 1950s. The public was first introduced to the concepts that would lead to the Internet when a message was sent over the ARPANet from computer science Professor Leonard Kleinrock's laboratory at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), after the second piece of network equipment was installed at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. In 1982, the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) was standardized, and consequently, the concept of a world-wide network of interconnected TCP/IP networks, called the Internet, was introduced. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations. Commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic. Since the mid-1990s, the Internet has had a revolutionary impact on culture and commerce, including the rise of near-instant communication by electronic mail, instant messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) "phone calls", two-way interactive video calls, and the World Wide Web with its discussion forums, blogs, social networking, and online shopping sites.
    [Show full text]