Seite 1

1
Federated Research Network Operations in Europe
through NRENs and DANTE - Organisational and
Financial Challenges - Karin Schauerhammer
(DFN), schau_at_dfn.de Klaus Ullmann (DFN),
ullmann_at_dfn.de EGI_DS Workshop_at_EGEE2007 Budapest
, October 2007
2
Contents

• Research User Groups
• The NREN Policy Committee (NRENPC)
• Example for an NREN
• DANTE structure
• Creation and Development of DANTE
• Review DANTE structure
• Comparison with EGI
• Summary

3
Research User Groups today

• Research collaborations today have in almost all
  cases an international dimension
• Example For LHC collaborations for data
  evaluation the international dimension of
  research networking is vital for the success
• NRENs and DANTE / Geant2 have to adapt to that
  situation - not only for the LHC experiment
  evaluation process

4
NRENPC as of 2007
Country NREN Austria (ACOnet) Belgium
(BELNET) Bulgaria (ISTF) Croatia
(CARNet) Czech Republic (CESNET) Cyprus
(CYNET) Germany (DFN) Estonia (EENet)
France (RENATER) Greece (GRNET) Hungary
(HUNGARNET) Ireland (HEANet) Israel
(IUCC) Italy (GARR) Latvia
(LATNET) Lithuania (LITNET) Luxembourg
(RESTENA) Malta (UoM) Netherlands (SURFNET)
Country NREN Nordic Countries (NorduNet)
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway,
Sweden Poland (PSNC) Portugal (FCCN)
Romania (RoEduNet) Russia (JSCC) Slovakia
(SANET) Slovenia (ARNES) Spain
(RedIRIS) Switzerland (SWITCH) Turkey
(ULAKBIM) United Kingdom (UKERNA) Plus
Non-Voting Members DANTE, TERENA Perm.
Observers CERN, AMREJ, MARNET
5
NRENPC - Governing Structure

• Presently the NREN Policy Committee, the NRENPC
  is governing the networking policy definition,
  has always successfully devised a flexible
  substructure (for example an Exec) to adapt to
  management needs and is acting as the
  top-governance body for consortium projects
• DANTE plays (in addition to the operational
  tasks) the role of the consortium co-ordinator
  and has a special, legally defined role.

6
NREN Example DFN

• Legal status private not-for-profit, tax-exempt
  association under German law (Verein)
• Members Institutional members only (!)
  universities, research labs from public and
  private sector
• Governance DFN members elect every 3 years a
  Council of Administration the three chairmen
  form the Board two membership assemblies per
  year, normally two council meetings pa and 10
  Board meetings pa
• Financial yearly turnover roughly 35 - 40 M ,
  slowly going down due to market developments
• Business Case X-WiN and other services like AAI,
  security, PKI, ... in Germany, AUP restricted

7
X-WiN (1) Fibre network
KIE
DKRZ
ROS
DES
HAM
FFO
BRE
TUB
POT
ZEU
HAN
HUB
BIE
MUE
ZIB
BRA
MAG
ADH
DUI
DRE
FZJ
LEI
AAC
BIR
JEN
CHE
FRA
ILM
Geant2
BAY
GSI
ESF
KAI
SAA
ERL
HEI
REG
FZK
Renater
KEH
STU
GAR
Richtung Basel
13.10.2006
Switch/GARR
8
X-WiN (2) Router Platform
AWI
FZJ
43 CISCO7609
KR
10GE
9
International Body DANTE

• Legal status private not-for-profit, tax-exempt
  shareholding company under UK law Members NRENs
  only (!), presently 15 European NRENs
• Governance members elect the Board of Directors
  two shareholder meetings per year, normally 4 - 5
  Board meetings per year.
• Financial turnover pa roughly 50 M (see graph
  for the development over the past years)
• Business Case Geant2 future generations,
  connectivity in Europe and worldwide

10
Geant2 topology as of 2007
11
LHCOPN T0 T1 network (as of 07/07)
RAL
NorduGrid
TRIUMF
BNL
FNAL
S-Janet
ASCC
CERN T0
NorduNet
SWITCH
Surfnet
SARA
GEANT2
DFN
Renater
GRIDKa
GARR
Rediris
IN2P3
PIC
CNAF
12
Development DANTE budget (1994 2006)
13
The Creation of DANTE (1)

• DANTE is the result of the COSINE project
• COSINE was a project similar to EGI_DS it
  comprised ministerial people in the policy group
  and technical people from NRENs.
• The main findings in respect to the creation of
  DANTE are summarized in a 1992 report Towards a
  Single European Infrastructure (see paper
  version of the presentation)

14
The Creation of DANTE (2)

• Amongst others the following items had to be
  solved
• (Initial) business case definition (not far from
  the business case today)
• Solution for the capitalisation
• Governance, control and membership structure
  definition
• Establishment planning (location, size, people
  for the company)
• Launch and start-up scenario development

15
Reviewing DANTEs structure

• (Initial) business case definition - successfully
  accomplished and all further developments without
  too many problems for example neither an NREN
  nor DANTE had any problems when the Internet
  bubble exploded in 2000
• Solution for the capitalisation shares, initial
  COSINE funds and small yearly surplus produced
  sufficient working capital
• Governance, control and membership structure
  definition ok, apart from 2 problems (asset
  management and management structure)
• Establishment planning for DANTE was never a
  significant problem
• Launch and Start-up scenario - successful

16
Two problem areas

• Only 15 out of 30 NRENs are DANTE Shareholders,
  this has two consequences
• Asset administration DANTE formally owns all
  assets gained through common (and commonly
  co-financed through all NRENs!) projects like
  Geant2
• Examples DWDM equipment, long term fibre
  contracts etc.
• Duplication of some management structures, i.e.
  DANTE Board and GN2 Executive

17
Possible solution for the two problem areas

• DANTE will probably be re-structured into a
  company limited by guarantee under UK law (rather
  than limited by shares)
• UKERNA, the UK NREN, is a company limited by
  guarantee as well
• This would enable nearly all NRENs to join.

18
Comparison with EGI

• (Initial) business case definition most
  important work, to be done in WP3
• Solution for the capitalisation depends on the
  business case findings
• Governance, control and membership structure
  definition work to be done in WP2 and WP4
• Establishment planning (location, size, people
  for the company) to be done later in WP5
• Launch and start-up scenario development to be
  done in WP5 in conjunction with well defined
  business case

19
Summary

• The crucial question for EGI What is the EGI
  business case? Is there an EGI (budget-) driven
  GRID operation or are the actual GRID operations
  much more federated through the NGIs?
• Highest priority in EGI must have the use case
  (business case) definition. Everything else can
  only be derived from that.
• How do NGIs develop?
• The rest should follow a pragmatic approach.