Download Internet History - Japan

Draft
Internet History - Japan
Aug. 24, 2003
Kazunori Konishi
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
Objectives
(1) Recording of the Pioneers’ efforts
(2) Study on technical trend for investing the
resources.
(3) Lessons Learned from the History for the
new problems; human nature will not change,
though political or technical environments
might face the big changes. =>> “Grass roots
activities” should be based on human
nature; ex. AP* activities.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
Big Picture in Japan
Network/
Protocol
1970 Original
Equipment Open
RFC
/Device
Source
Carrier
(intel CPU)
monopoly
Protocol
1980 OSI,
OSI,
UUCP GW
UUCP => IP
1990 Commercial, LaptopPC,
APAN, IPv6
2000 Lambda
network
i-mode
HDTV
ALTQ
IPv6
DVTS
Char Sets,
Stick to,
MPLS, HDLC but finally
over SONET, give up
OSI
FAX
RTP-MPEG4,
RTP-DV,
Wireless
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
Over
provision
Number of RFCs by Japanese
Year
Number
1993
2
1994
0
1995
1
1996
1
1997
10
1998
3
1999
0
2000
8
2001
12
2001
6
2003
5
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
Over Provisioning of the bandwidth
Cable in Asia
Bandwidth
Wide
C2C
7.68 Tbps
Owners
SingTel
APCN2
2.56 Tbps
Many carriers
EAC
2.56 Tbps
China Netcom
Demand in Asia is roughly 10 Gbps now.
Issue: How can we bridge the gap? Healthy business
of telecom carriers should be protected.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
Following pages are extracted from my
presentation at IWS2001.
<small revisions are made for this meeting>
http://www.jp.apan.net/meetings/IWS2001
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
History & Future of AsiaPacific Research Networks
Feb. 22, 2001
Kazunori Konishi
(APAN NOC Director)
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Contents
1. History
2. Issues
3. Future
This presentation focuses on the international activities,
link owners and legal issues.
Rough observations are described and mistakes might
be found in this presentation.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
History of International Networks
IWS2001
aloha
uucp
net
bitnet wide
sinet
apan
future
year
1980
1985
1989
1992
1998
2004?
JP
tohoku
kddlab sut
-u
keio
nii
jst/sta
Gov/WI
DE
US
hawaii
iu/nsf
Gov/Do
nation
circuit
NASA/
kddlab ibm
kdd
comm
ents
req by
mpt
1985
seism
o
volunt
eer
cuny
1st
leased
circuit
hawaii/
sprint
nsf
jp/us
gov/Do
nation
compa
nies
monbu jp/us
/gov
gov
OSI by
gov
compu 1st
10G
ter
transit
lambda
centers service
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
ALOHAnet(1980)
• Lead by Professor Norman Abramson
@ U-Hawaii : origin of Ethernet
• Coordinated at Pacific Telecommunications Council(PTC)
• Professor Oizumi @ Tohoku-U joined the
network.
• NASA(KDD) donated the satellite circuit,
recommended by MPT
• KDD was rich, with the monopoly & high cost of
the services.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
UUCPnet/Usenet(1985)
• Operated by KDD Labs. on a volunteer basis.
• PSTN & PSDN were used.
• The partners became commercialized later on:
UUnet, Eunet.
• “Membership” allowed the operation over the
public networks, without any license.
• Limited resources were allocated, because OSI
was promising in those days.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
BITNET(1985)
• IBM donated the circuit & equipments,
promoting SNA.
• Science University of Tokyo(SUT)
organized private universities.
• The US power enabled to use the leased
circuit without any license.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
WIDE(1989)
• Jun Murai organized the large number
of engineers at commercial companies
& universities. (Murai had organized
UUCP domestic network “JUNET”)
• U-Hawaii’s PACCOM project organized AP
regional networks.
• Governments were still persistent in OSI,
though they knew OSI was being defeated.
(US Gov. also declared the adoption of OSI
products)
• Industries & Universities required the “illegal?”
activities of WIDE.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
SINET(1992)
• Government was forced to adopt TCP/IP in
addition to OSI.
• OSI was the primary protocol for a while.
• The big budget enabled the large membership.
• A Ministry can use the leased circuit without any
license; not hierarchy among governments.
• Government is not so flexible.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
APAN(1998)
• NSF required the transit services
over TransPAC link.
• The owners of point-to-point links
started the collaborated operations.
• AP Regional networks were developed
with a hub in Tokyo.
• The institutions with advanced research
projects are allowed to use TransPAC
link.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Issues
• NGI vs. Commercial Networks
– NGI: experiment, Commercial: reliability
• Cost Sharing of International links
– Dispute between USA vs. “Europe & Asia”
• IT Strategy Headquarters vs. Governments
– Do the Japanese adopt/like a hierarchical government
system?
• Telephone services will be taken over by the
Internet.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
NGI vs. Commercial Networks
• NGI
– Testbed networks for high speed applications
– Premature technologies should be
experimented.
– Should lead the deployment of the advanced
technologies.
• Commercial Networks
– Reliable operation is critical.
– Business oriented.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Cost Sharing between USA and
the other regions.
• “Fair cost sharing” were widely discussed in
ITU as well as in Inter-government projects; it
was requested that US should pay more for
the international links.
• Globalization of ISP businesses seems to
solve the problem.
• NSF’s HPIIS seems to lessen the problem for
the time being.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Cost sharing in AP region
• Economy in AP region is quite diverse.
• AP countries are less organized than
Europe.
• Cost sharing is very difficult. Possible
solutions are
– One country pays for the whole link.
– Each country pays for the half link.
• Transit service is now available; thanks for
NSF’s HPIIS.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
IT Strategy Headquarters vs.
Governments
• Can IT Strategy Headquarters be
independent from the other government
agencies?
• Can IT Strategy Headquarters organize
the network engineers such as JET in
USA?
• Do the government agencies accept the
administration by IT Strategy
Headquarters?
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Telephone over the Internet(1)
• International circuits(estimation)
– Bandwidth: telephone vs. Internet = 1 : 10
– Budget:
telephone vs. Internet = 10 : 1
Telephone is the value-added service: 100 times
than the Internet. Cost per International bandwidth
– Cable capacity will increase more than twice per year.
– Cost per bandwidth might decrease 30%~ per year.
Cost depends on the redundant capacity.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Telephone over the Internet(2)
• Telephone has been replaced and will be
replaced by the Internet.
– Fax over PSTN has been replaced by the
Internet.
– Phone over PSTN will be gradually replaced
by the Internet.
• The bandwidth of the Internet can be
dramatically increased by saving “Phone
service”.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Future
• Higher speed applications will be deployed.
• Higher speed in both subscriber & backbone
links will be required. PSTN will be a backup
network of the Internet for the phone services
in the near future.
• Joint operation of NGI networks is critical in
the current society in JP; each government
agency will expand/keep the budget for NGI
activities.
• The bandwidth of the Internet will be
dramatically increased, taking over expensive
Phone services.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting
IWS2001
Summary
• NGI in Japan will be jointly operated by multiple
government agencies: APAN2?
• Cost sharing between USA and AP/EU should
be discussed again for the post-HPIIS project;
global ISPs will not exist in NGI. We also
should show US citizens are getting the benefits
from HPIIS project.
• The Internet has faced & will face with legal
issues.
• NGI will dramatically increase the bandwidth,
taking over phone services as well as reducing
the cost of the circuit.
2003 Busan AP*Retreat Meeting