Internet2 International
Activities
Heather Boyles
Director, International Relations, Internet2
Internet2 Industry Strategy Council
Meeting
11 March 2016
NSF International Connections
High Performance International Internet
Services (HPIIS)
• Original solicitation (RFP) 1997
• Funded three connections projects
– TransPAC – Asia (Indiana University)
– EuroLink – Europe (France, Israel, Nordic countries,
Netherlands) (University of Illinois Chicago)
– MIRnet – Russia (University of Tennessee, later NCSA)
• To connect to STAR TAP (Chicago)
– Also funded by NSF
New NSF International
connections program
NSF International Research Network
Connections (IRNC) solicitation released
March 9, 2004
NSF Shared Cyber Infrastructure (SCI)
division
• Within CISE (Computer and Information Sciences and
Engineering)
Proposals due June 7, 2004
• To support network connections linking US research
networks with peer networks in other parts of the world
• In support of science and engineering research and
education applications
Program emphases
Economies of scale; linking largest
communities of interest with broadest services
Reliable, leading-edge service for research
and education
• Contemplates possibility that infrastructure could also
provide for experiments that prototype next generation
services, but doesn’t require
Rational global network architecture; sharing
of circuits, encouragement of national/regional
build-out
The right approach
Given limited resources and solicitation’s
focus on broadest possible reach…….
A coordinated response from the community
• Avoid individual, competing efforts that fragment available
resources
• Greater leverage of outside resources
– Key partners outside US are interested in working with US as a
single entity, not competing institutions
• Move away from point to point connections and toward
global infrastructure
• Provide seamless performance for science community
Internet2 Role
Catalyst for coordinated response
Bring to table Internet2 member institutions
with resources, capabilities
Corporate relationships
US domestic infrastructure
International relationships
Internet2 coordinated community efforts in
performance, security, middleware, discipline
community engagement
Strategy
Form coalition of partners from Internet2
community
• Indiana University and Internet2 are on board
• Key additional partners we are working on:
– Pacific Northwest Gigapop (UW)
– CENIC
– U. Hawaii
– StarLight (Tom DeFanti)
– GLORIAD project
– Florida International University
– IEEAF
– Others (NYSERNET, discipline communities: Harvey
Newman, MIT Haystack, Gemini Observatory)
Single proposal covering connectivity to
Europe, Asia/Oceania, Latin America and
beyond
Key non-US partners
Europe: GEANT consortium
Asia: APAN with APAN-Japan (MPHPT
– Communications Research
Laboratory)
• Australia/AARNET connections
• CERNET/CSTNET in China/Hong Kong
• Singapore?
Latin America: CLARA consortium
Latin America
Latin America: CLARA backbone network
• Initially Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Chile with Venezuela,
possibly Panama
• Ecuador, Cost Rica, Uruguay, Colombia 2nd wave
Focus on:
• Dark fiber across border between San Diego and Tijuana (to
CUDI/CLARA pop) – CENIC to play major role in facilitating
• Connection from US (Miami, New York) to CLARA node on
South American continent (Sao Paulo, Santiago) – FIU could
play key role with exchange point facility in Miami; and
continuing Global Crossing donations to AMPATH
Asia-Pacific Connections
No regional “backbone network”
• Connection to APAN Tokyo XP and beyond (Hong Kong,
Singapore)
• Leverage Australian connections to US West Coast via
Hawaii
Key US partner roles
• Indiana University – relationship with Japanese funding
source
• Pacific Wave (Pacific NorthWest Gigapop and CENIC)
infrastructure
– Land connections from Australia and to Tokyo and beyond
• U. Hawaii facilitating connections in Hawaii
– Japan link?
– Astronomy importance
Europe and beyond
GEANT
• European Commission and National Research Network
funded (31+ countries)
Key to ‘global approach’
• GEANT connectivity to Mediterranean, South Eastern
Europe, Russia, Southeastern Asia, Latin America
• Willing to partner together to leverage each others’ facilities,
resources
• Share trans-oceanic (both Atlantic and Pacific) capacities
• Key to reaching South Africa? India possibly
Status/Progress
In process of getting key US/Internet2
member partners on board
• Indiana University on board
• NYSERNET on board
• Discussions this weekend and next week to see if we can
get other key members on board
Key non-US partners are on board
Discussions with carriers to understand circuit
costing issues; build a set of alternatives
based on funds available
Beginning proposal-writing process
Risks, Challenges
Single proposal to NSF presents issues
• Size of award
• Expectation of 3-6 proposals
Possible that we will not be able to get
all key US partners on board
Competing proposals are likely –
although probably not on this scale
Conclusion
The NSF program is a key opportunity
At the same time, the coordination effort
needs to extend beyond this particular
opportunity
• If we can create a framework of global interconnectivity, can
leverage other resources
– Outside US
– Within US: other government agencies: DOE/ESnet
Internet2 is well-positioned to play critical role
in coordinating these efforts on behalf of US,
in partnership with NSF and others
Will rely on gaining partnership of key US
community members