cooperative association for Internet data analysis

A proposal submitted to
the National Science Foundation


Summary of proposal
  1. Internet Infrastructure Consortium
    1. Current Situation
    2. Need for an Industry/Research Consortium
    3. Role of the Government
    4. Data as the Core/Foundation of the Consortium
  2. Deliverables and Timeline
    1. Phase I: the building blocks (0 - 12 months)
    2. Phase II: implementing the vision (6 - 24 months)
    3. Phase III: weaning the consortium (12 - 36 months)
  3. NLANR's Role
    1. NLANR's Involvement
    2. Liaison with R&E community: (NIMI, Common Solutions Group, DOE, NASA)
    3. NLANR/RA collaboration
    4. Phasing Out NLANR Involvement
  4. Key Events
    1. Organizing workshop - late March 1997
    2. Follow-on to ISMA - April 1997
    3. Other Meetings
  5. Relationships with other Organizations
    1. Existing Internet Administrative Bodies (IEPG, IETF, NANOG)
    2. Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
    3. Major User Groups (Educom, FARNET, auto industry)
    4. The Routing Arbiter Project
    5. Others (APNIC, Canarie, CIX, CommerceNet, CSG, ISOC, XIWT, RIPE, Terena, APNIC, etc.)
  6. Consortium Management
    1. Building on NLANR community -- cooperation
    2. General Grant/Subcontract Management
    3. Business and Data Management
    4. Budget Justification
  7. Results from Previous and Current Awards
  8. References
  9. Frequently asked questions

Summary of proposal

The Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) seeks to promote greater industry cooperation in architecting and managing the Global Internet Infrastructure. It will address global engineering concerns that are highly dependent upon cross-ISP coordination, particularly those requiring measurement of Internet metrics. It will also address ISPs' emerging need for technical mechanisms to facilitate service guarantees and financial settlements between providers. Specifically, the CAIDA will endeavor to:
  1. identify, develop and deploy measurement tools across the Internet;
  2. work with commercial providers to provide them with a neutral, confidential vehicle for data sharing and analysis;
  3. provide networking researchers and the general Internet community with current data on Internet traffic flow patterns;
  4. assist in the introduction / deployment of emerging internet tools and technologies such as multicast, IPv6, web caching, bandwidth reservation protocols, etc.; and
  5. enhance communications between commercial Internet service providers and the broader Internet communities.
The goal is to have both government and industry participate in CAIDA's creation. The initial vision of CAIDA is as a supporting framework for a set of active tasks to be defined in real time in conjunction with CAIDA members. There will be three modes through which tasks will be defined: proposed by CAIDA researchers themselves to an individual or set of CAIDA sponsoring members; jointly proposed by CAIDA researchers and CAIDA sponsoring members; or solicited by a single or set of sponsoring members to CAIDA.

We are proposing that NSF help to seed the effort as a charter CAIDA member. This proposal covers the initial three years of seed support for CAIDA research and development efforts. Complementing an industry-wide effort with government support will promote balance among the needs of the various communities (private, research, government, and users), and facilitate the near term development and deployment of critical measurement technology and techniques.

1.0 Internet Infrastructure Consortium
1.1 Current Situation
( has an NLANR survey of current activities)

As the era of the NSFnet Backbone Service came to a close in April 1995, the community lost the ability to rely on what was the only set of publically available statistics for a large national U.S. backbone. The transition to the new NSFnet program, with commercial operations providing both regional service as well as cross-service provider switching points (NAPs), has virtually eliminated the public availability of statistics and analysis at the national level.

Currently, there is no centralized control over Internet service providers (ISPs). ISPs do not always coordinate their efforts with each other, and quite often are in competition. Nevertheless, the National Information Infrastructure (NII) continues to drive funding into hardware, pipes, and multimedia-capable tools, with very little attention to any kind of underlying infrastructural sanity checks. The market for IP access provision is now estimated at more that $720 million -- upwards of $2 billion if information providers such as AOL and Compuserve are included. (src: Maloff Company's 1996 IAP Marketplace Analysis Report)

Obstacles to the collection and analysis of traffic data on the commercial Internet include political, legal (privacy), logistical, and proprietary considerations. Data acquisition will be further complicated by networks transitioning to high speed switched technologies (e.g., ATM, switched FDDI). In this environment, it may no longer even be technically feasible to access IP layer data in order to do traffic flow profiling, certainly not at switches within commercial ATM clouds. Many newer layer 2 switches, e.g., DEC's gigaswitch, and ATM switches generally, have little if any capability for performing layer 3 statistics collection, or even looking at traffic in the manner allowed on a broadcast medium (e.g., FDDI, Ethernet), where a passive listener can collect statistics without interfering with switching. Statistics collection functionality in newer switches takes resources directly away from forwarding of frames/cells, which may have the effect of driving customers toward switches from competing vendors who sacrifice such functionality in exchange for speed.

Recognizing the implications of these transitions, the National Laboratory for Applied Networking Research (NLANR) took steps in mid 1995 (with funding by NSF and support by the Federal Networking Council) to position measurement equipment at the federally-owned FIX-West exchange point. Results of FIX-West traffic characterization have been presented at numerous venues over the last year, including the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee meetings, NANOG, and IETF meetings.

NLANR's mission extends to serving `as a vehicle to integrate issues in economics and cultural network penetration with application, architecture and engineering research'. In this capacity, NLANR worked with Bellcore to host an NSF-supported workshop entitled Internet Statistics and Metrics Analysis in February 1996. Workshop participants articulated a need for smoother coordination and information exchange among Internet service providers -- both providers of Internet access and traffic exchange services.

Although most participants at the workshop felt that the Internet development and provider community should seek out measurement infrastructure and sources of statistics in the commercially decentralized Internet, there was definite dissonance as to which measurements would help, and who should have access to them. While a public infrastructure for `end-to-end' measurements could help researchers and end users study the infrastructure, participants concurred that Internet service providers (ISPs) themselves would be the greatest beneficiaries of an enhanced statistics capability. Opinions varied as to the sensitivity of some data and how much could be released publically. Participants agreed that a neutral venue was needed for the publication of such statistics. A neutral forum could also facilitate more comprehensive collaboration, consensus-building, and the development of tools to measure new metrics that are important to stability, service, efficient resource allocation, and more economically viable network usage pricing policies.

NLANR (with KC Claffy, UCSD serving as PI) proposes to establish a neutrally sponsored measurement and analysis team that could eventually serve as a critical component of such a forum. Indeed, this team would provide technical grounding to effectively launch the forum, with a concrete, specific agenda that will also promote longer term service improvements on the Internet, The CAIDA team will concentrate on the needs outlined at the ISMA workshop: the exchange of statistics that would assist the engineering of a multi-ISP infrastructure. ISPs, who have thus far not devoted priority resources to statistics collection, will find an increasing need for them as network technology, infrastructure, utilization, and cross-section of customer profiles grows.

1.2 Need for an Industry/Research Consortium

In Routing in a Multi-Provider Internet, Y. Rekhter writes

Through this proposal, we hope to promote greater collaboration between both the Internet access and exchange providers and Internet users. The proposal sets forth tangible goals of:

1.3 Role of the Government

Federal agencies have expressed interest in playing a continuing role in the development, testing and deployment of new networking technologies. Indeed, although a less powerful force in the operational Internet than in the past, as a major user with mission-critical Internet requirements, the federal government continues to play a role in facilitating discussions about the Internet architecture and administration.

The Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee (FNCAC) addressed this role in their December 1996 recommendations on Internet Statistics and Metrics. According to the FNCAC, FNC agencies should strive toward:

Internet Metrics & Tools
Table 1: Internet Metrics and Tools
TypeApplicable whereRelevance to Internet SettlementsRelevance to Analysis of Network PerformanceMeasurement Tools
Raw Metrics:
- Access Capacity (bit/sec) CC charge for bit rate; equipment cost depends on bit rate
a priori
- Connect Time CC charge for connect time
CC metering
- Total Traffic (bytes) transit traffic settlement between ISPs
router or access server stats; packet/flow sampling.
- Peak burst (bit/sec sustained for n sec.) ISP/NSP overbooks trunks
ANS's cflowd, tcpdump RTFM meters; etc.
Announced Routes (#)at exchange points, multihomed connections
RA data and tools, netaxs
- Route Flaps (#)exchange points, multihomed connections
RA tools
- Stability, e.g. route up/downtime, route transitionsexchange points, multihomed connections
RA tools
- Presence of more specific routes with less specific routesexchange points, multihomed connections
- Number of reachable destinations (not just IP addresses) covered by a route exchange points, multihomed connections
Path Metrics:
- Delay (milliseconds)everywhere
TBD, ping
- Flow Capacity (bits/sec)everywhere
TBD, treno
- Mean Packet Loss Rate (%)everywhere
TBD, ping-based
- Mean RTT (sec)everywhere
TBD, ping-based
- HOP Counts/Congestioneverywhere
TBD, traceroutes
- Flow characteristics (protocol profiles, cross-section, traffic matrix, asymmetry) exchange points, multihomed networks
ISP report
- Network outage information (remote host unreachable)individual networks
ISPs reports, IPNmoo
- AS x AS matricesIndividual networks
ISP reports
- Information Sourceconnection of service provider (DNS or RR server); content provider (web server); info replicator (MBONE router & caches)
router or access server stats; packet sampling, flow meters; etc.
Topology Visualization:
- MBONE Internet Infrastructure
- Information caching hierarchyInternet Infrastructure/individual caches

Notes: CC - common carrier, ISP - internet service provider, NSP - national service provider, TBD - to be determined

Sources: Metrics for Internet Settlements, B. Carpenter (CERN), Internet Draft, May 1996;
A Common Format for the Recording and Interchange of Peering Point Utilization Statistics, K. Claffy (NLANR), D. Siegel (Tucson NAP), and B. Woodcock (PCH), presented at NANOG, May 30, 1996.

Many of the Internet metrics above are inherently problematic, and still require research, in areas such measuring one-way delay, metrics for variance and other statistics of delay distribution (e.g., percentiles), and dealing with asymmetric routing. For example, for a given delay measurement, total delay across a path equals the sum of the delay across the components of the path. It is not clear what analogous statements one can make regarding other delay statistics e.g., mean, variance, percentiles. Vern Paxson's Towards a Framework for Defining Internet Performance Metrics ( compressed postscript here) published in Inet '96, presents a cogent discussion of these issues.

Measuring the throughput or flow capacity of a live connection without detrimental performance impact is difficult. In theory, flow capacity is also amenable to path decomposition, i.e., one can approximate the flow sustainable across a path by the minimum of the flows sustainable across each of the components of the path. In practice, however, buffering characteristics and routing asymmetries impose `friction' in the system, limiting the viability of the formal definitions. We will need to compare several alternatives for empirical metrics, and qualify the degree to which they deviate from the corresponding formal metrics. It will be essential to develop a methodology to estimate sustainable throughput from some baseline flow capacity measurements in conjunction with current delay measurements. NLANR researchers at PSC have developed one possible tool to measure transport layer performance, treno, with a descriptive paper published in Inet '96.

Future data activities may stretch beyond the network layer toward optimizing overall service quality via mechanisms such as information caching and multicast. Visualization is important for making sense of all the data sets described above, and is especially critical for developing and maintaining the efficiency of logically overlaying architectures, such as caching, multicast, mobile, IPsec, and IPv6 tunnel infrastructures. Examples include

b. expanding participation

At this stage, expanding participation will receive high priority, to include additional representatives from four illustrative categories: 1) National Service Providers (NSPs) and National Access Point (NAP) providers; 2) Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Peering Exchange providers; 3) Special Members, including equipment and software venders; and 4) Research Networks, including Federal and internationally recognized research networks (e.g., networks participating in the Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research Networks, CCIRN) . Participation by members will be in terms of both private sector financial support and data acquisition/sharing.

c. developing analytic capability

Initial tool development and data analysis priorities will be set during the first six months. The CAIDA team will collaborate with other principal investigators and research institutions, including participants in the Common Solutions Group (CSG) proposed measurement infrastructure initiative. The contortium will establish guidelines through which researchers (from academia, telecommunications firms, and elsewhere) can submit brief proposals requesting access to CAIDA-specific data sets and will encourage collaborating institutions (e.g., the CSG initiative) to do likewise. Criteria for access will include the benefits of the research to the overall Internet community and the willingness of researchers to abide by the consortium's guidelines with respect to privacy and confidentiality.

Such collaborations will be critical to furthering the state-of-the-art in this sector and ensuring that information sharing among the numerous international entities with interests in this area are kept informed and/or directly involved.

2.3 Phase III: weaning the consortium (12 - 36 months)

a. supplementing/replacing public funding with private sector contributions
While non-government financial contributions are anticipated during the first year, we expect that CAIDA will institute a formal grant structure following the establishment of the non-profit organization. Initial funds may supplement organizational/technical activities, and during the second year will begin to replace government funds.

b. encouraging international participation
Given the global nature of the Internet and the importance of concepts such as resource reservation (e.g., RSVP) and settlements, we anticipate particular interest in the consortium from international service providers and telecommunications firms such as British Telecom, Singapore Telecom, and others.

c. reassessing charter/structure
During the third year of operation, direct involvement by government in the consortium will transition to that of a member. We anticipate that the government may continue to fund R&D related to networking statistics/metrics, but that industry will also take advantage of CAIDA as a resource upon which to draw for studies they need but do not have resources to pursue themselves. The goal is to have both government and industry participate in CAIDA's creation. The initial vision of CAIDA is as a supporting framework for a set of active tasks to be defined in real time in conjunction with CAIDA members. We expect there will be three modes through which tasks will be defined: proposed by CAIDA researchers themselves to an individual or set of CAIDA sponsoring members; jointly proposed by CAIDA researchers and CAIDA sponsoring members; or solicited by a single or set of sponsoring members to CAIDA.

3.0 NLANR's Role

3.1 NLANR's Involvement

NLANR provides the NSF and other Federal agencies active in networking research and development with the unique opportunity to create a distributed national laboratory for applied network research. Integrated into the infrastructure of multiple existing NSF supercomputing centers and Federal R&E networks (most notably NSF's high speed vBNS networking activity), NLANR serves as a framework for a collaborative agenda to evolve national networking. The collaborative framework is specifically designed for its development into an important national asset for the NSF and the U.S. research and education community.

In the statistics arena, NLANR and those associated with it have distinguished themselves as leaders in Internet measurement. At SDSC, Hans-Werner Braun and K.C. Claffy collected and analyzed traffic flows through the FIX-West exchange point for more than a year. Claffy and Bilal Chinoy have worked with the NSF-supported NAPs to make public their traffic data. Claffy, Dave Siegel (RTD) and Bill Woodcock (Zocalo) have developed and deployed common data file formats across Metropolitan Internet exchange points (MIXes). Eric Hoffman (prev. Ipsilon, now with NLANR) is developing a tool for monitoring congestion along Internet paths.

Other NLANR sites are also engaged in measurement activities. Matt Mathis and Jamshid Mahdavi (PSC) are continuing their work on TCP performance issues with Sally Floyd (LBL) and Allyn Romanov (Sun), presenting the SACK Internet Draft at the March 1996 IETF, and publishing a related paper in Sigcomm '96. Both are currently working on implementations, focusing on NetBSD and Digital Unix, which they will test over both the vBNS and commodity network as soon as they are completed.

3.2 Liaison to R&E community: (NIMI, Common Solutions Group, DOE and NASA activities)

While Caida will ultimately be an institution to directly serve the ISP community and its commercial infrastructure, NLANR will provide essential glue, for at least several years, to test and deploy tools on R&E infrastructre before launching them on core commerical infrastructure. Several NLANR investigators are deeply involved in community measurement efforts, making CAIDA support a natural extension of its mission.

NLANR researchers Matt Mathis and Jamshid Mahdavi of PSC, in collaboration with Vern Paxson (LBL), have proposed a National Internet Measurement Infrastructure on which to deploy performance assessment software. They intend to enhance the current NPD software to be more industrial strength, but hardly more intrusive than ntpd, and then initially deploy it on research and federal agency infrastructure. Federal agency networks such as DREN and AAInet have already expressed interest in contributing bootstrapping resources to such a measurement infrastructure. In particular, the DOE has already begun extensive measurements to ascertain the performance their users receive, both domestically and internationally. NASA has already and will continue to provide NLANR with support for placing a measurement machine at FIX-west, which has become one of the few if not only publically available source of workload characteristics on the public Internet.

In the educational domain, the Common Solutions Group have expressed plans to make selected campus infrastructure available for deploying objective performance assessment tools, has also already approached NLANR about tool deployment on their infrastructure.

NLANR would offer or coordinate initial support for probes as desired by these communities, as CAIDA focuses on fostering research relationships with the commercial community.

3.3 NLANR/RA collaboration

Craig Labovitz (Merit), under the auspices of the NSF-funded Routing Arbiter project, offers an extensive collection of data and statistical reports. Data include real-time graphs of network instability, charts and reports of instability and invalid routing announcement sources, and long-term trends. Also measured are packet loss and delay across and between the NAPs. The RA also uses SNMP to track BGP update totals, idle peering sessions, system uptime, free virtual memory and CPU utilization. This collection of data provides insight into end-to-end routing pathologies, provider stability and network topology. NLANR has been working with Craig for several months, and he will be the PI on a CAIDA-adjunct proposal to be submitted from the University of Michigan for routing statistics analysis and tool development. We intend for the University of Michigan activities to gradually become seamlessly integrated with CAIDA.

3.4 CAIDA as an Autonomous Organization

The NLANR project supports the national networking agenda, providing long range engineering, design, and planning support through leveraging the resources of the NSF-supported supercomputing centers and other research institutions, including Harvard University (Scott Bradner), Lawrence Berkeley Labs (Vern Paxson), Kansas University (Gary Minden and Joe Evans), and Bellcore (Padma Krishnaswamy). NLANR's role in the formation of the proposed consortium is consistent with elements of its mission, most notably, those NLANR goals related to:

Given industry's nascent level of understanding concerning Internet measurements, including measurements associated with emerging ATM infrastructure, NLANR can significantly contribute to the development and implementation of new measurement technologies and techniques. Over time, however, use of these technologies will become more commonplace, and organizational control of CAIDA will transition from UCSD/NLANR to officers of the non-profit organization. At that time, CAIDA's affiliation with the university and with NLANR research staff will be reexamined in light of CAIDA priorities and goals of the member companies.

4.0 Key Events

4.1 Organizing summit - March 1997

We hope to hold an organizing workshop meeting of founding members and other key individuals around March 1997. Specific goals for this meeting include reaching agreement about

4.2 Follow-on to ISMA - April 1997

NLANR's role will be to assist in the design of the workshop. In her role as as PI of the CAIDA measurement and analysis research team, KC Claffy would encourage participation by other members of the consortium and lead discussions related to consortium requirements with respect to tool development/deployment and data analysis. Another institution might contribute with logistical coordination of this event (with government/private sector funding). The RFC's discussed during the IETF's Internet Provider Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group session in December 1996 would be covered, as would initial priorities identified by CAIDA members.

Goals include:

4.3 Other Meetings

An initial meeting of the Board of Directors is tentatively scheduled for mid-1997. At this meeting, the Advisory Members will review progress related to metrics definition, tool development/deployment, and reporting as well as the status of the organizing materials necessary to formally establish the organization. The Board of Directors will also review the consortium's business plan for operation and expansion during the first formal year of operation.

The core CAIDA statistics/metrics personnel will meet on a monthly basis via Internet multicast conferences, to which key technical staff from consortium members are also welcome. Members will establish schedules and detailed plans for how (and what) data to collect/analyze.

Other working groups might include the following: a) a Quality of Service (QoS) working group, focusing on audits/settlement issues; b) a Strategic Planning working group which would provide internal reports to members on emerging technologies and specific traffic patterns/issues and general reports to consumers on the state of the Internet; c) over time, an Education/Outreach working group.

5.0 Relationships with other Organizations

5.1 Existing Internet Administrative Bodies (IEPG, IETF, NANOG)

The objective of this forum is quite consistent with the spirit of the NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) and IEPG (Internet Engineering and Planning Group) groups. However, these technical organizations are informal and operate largely on volunteered resources, thereby lacking the structure necessary to implement initiatives along the lines of this proposed consortium. Furthermore, scheduled meetings of community interest groups that might develop statistics standards have hardly enough time for more critical items on the agenda, e.g., switch testing and instability of routing, to nurture the development of a consortium along the lines proposed herein.

In addition to directly engaging participants from these important organizations, consortium members will be encouraged to make regular presentations before these bodies. We also anticipate close coordination between the consortium and the IETF's Operational Area Directorate (co-chaired by Scott Bradner and Michael O'Dell) and its IPPM working group (co-chaired by Guy Almes and Matt Mathis).

5.2 Internet Service Providers (ISPs)

As mentioned earlier, several ISPs and Internet equipment vendors have already expressed commercial interest in seeing CAIDA established, acknowledging willingness to contribute shortly after its inception via gifts or labor support to CAIDA for isolated research and development tasks. MCI, BBN, AT&T, Nokia, IBM, ANS, and Cisco are among those who have indicated support.

Since CAIDA's ultimate goal is exist soley via functional support from ISPs and significant upstream providers to ISPs (i.e., Internet equipment vendors), fostering and extending these relationships will occur as quickly as possibe.

5.3 Major User Groups (Educom, FARNET, auto industry)

In addition to the federal sector, major user groups are now viewing the Internet as mission critical and are forming task groups to begin the process of defining their QOS requirements. These groups include: the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and higher education (through FARNET and Educom's Networking and Telecommunications Task Force(NTTF)). Applications developers are also placing increasing importance on their ability to monitor Internet performance as it affects their own products. Coordination with these and other representatives from the user community will be important in assisting ISPs to be more responsive to their customers' data and other related needs.

5.4 The Routing Arbiter Project

Merit/UMichigan will act in partnership with the management team of CAIDA to continue their successful advances in routing tool development and data collection activities that have been very much in the spirit of the CAIDA mission. Specifically, Craig Labovitz, currently with Merit under the auspcies of the RA project, will contribute tools for analyzing route flaps, routing instability, and long term trends in routing. Other RA-acquired data include performance statistics, delay and throughput measurements, all of which provide further insight into provider stability and network topology.

5.5 Others (Canarie, CIX, CommerceNet, ISOC, Terena, XIWT, RIPE, APNIC, etc.)

Several groups within the community are intending to move forward with measurement initiatives: CommerceNet, CIX, and internationally, Canarie and Terena. These organizations, as well as the Internet Society, the Cross Industry Working Team (XIWT) and others, have expressed interest in encouraging the definition of critical measurement metrics and the deployment of common measurement tools across ISPs. In particular, in the introduction to Internet Performance and Service Quality: User Requirements, XIWT notes that:

the ISP industry should work cooperatively, both with other ISPs in an industry-driven forum and with independent user-driven initiatives, to develop, measure, and share metrics and related information in order to continue the growth and maturation of the Internet and to improve its performance.
Since XIWT, similar to CommerceNet, is a consolidation of several large customers of ISPs, penetration to these groups will provide leverage.

Telecommunications regulators are also interested in this emerging business sector. Regulators in countries such as Singapore, for example, have defined preliminary QoS business metrics for ISPs and are beginning to measure performance.

The proposers have already been approached by Canarie, Terena, CIX, and CommerceNet regarding measurement efforts and what methodology and tools to best deploy. CAIDA tool development will progress taking into account the concerns of these constituencies.

6.0 Consortium Management

6.1 Building on NSF-sponsored community -- cooperation

In the initial stages of the consortium, there will be strong reliance on the spirit of cooperation that has characterized the (early) Internet and NLANR/RA collaboration. Once the consortium attains its status as a nonprofit, with associated bylaws and agreements, we will codify its research and data collection/analysis processes. The spirit of distributed cooperation, however, will continue as a principal characteristic of this ambitious organization.

6.2 General Grant/Subcontract Management

This grant will be managed under the guidelines set forth by NSF and by the University of California at San Diego. Dr. K.C. Claffy will serve as the Principal Investigator. UCSD will hire a Business Manager for the effort. Eric Hoffman will serve as technical lead for tool development. Via a related CAIDA proposal, Craig Labovitz (U.Michigan) will lead the routing analysis component in conjunction with the Routing Arbiter project on which he has worked for the last year. Rusty Eddy (ISI) will also assist with routing statistics analysis. Engineers for tool development and data analysis will include: Eric Hoffman (NLANR/UCSD), Duane Wessels (NLANR/UCSD), John May (LLNL), and several engineers at ISPs that are already working on tools useful for CAIDA tasks.

6.3 Business and Data Management

Business Management: In collaboration with the PI, the Business Manager will be responsible for:

Once the consortium is fully operational, an executive director will be appointed by the Board of Directors. The executive director will assume the functions of the business manager and will oversee day-to-day operations of the consortium. Funding for the executive director will be provided by the consortium membership.

Data Management: Overall management of the data acquisition, processing, and analysis will reside with the CAIDA PI and task leaders. Tasks include (task lead in parentheses):

  1. data acquisition, processing, reporting (K.C. Claffy and Eric Hoffman)
  2. analysis of IP data, including network performance, routing, and workflow characterization (K.C. Claffy)
  3. analysis of routing statistics (Craig Labovitz)

    6.4 Budget Justification

    The central mission under the proposed work is to coordinate data collection efforts of various ISPs as well as mutually agreed solutions. The rationale for government support (versus an industry-only effort) is to promote balance among the needs of the various communities (private, research, government, and users), and facilitate the near term development and deployment of critical measurement technology and techniques. We will maintain maximum flexibilty and most efficient use of funds through the use of independent contract agreements for technical support until CAIDA can sustain itself through industrial support.

    The budget includes funds for travel to conferences on Internet engineering to deliver results, standards bodies in order to participate in the formation of relevant standards, and meetings with individual organization and smaller working groups for purposes of coordination.

    We require a small number of medium range workstations and storage devices in order to perform bulk data analysis and support interactive data visualization. We will use smaller, minimal workstations (PCs or equivalent) as data collection boxes at major interconnection points and to serve as intermediate collection and digestion points.

    Because such a large portion of the proposed work involves visualization and dissemination of data analysis, we must support minimal distribution formats: in particular, we need medium grade color printing facilities and the ability to produce computer animations on videotape for widespread distribution.

    Costs to defray base level internet connectivity to appropriate provider are required as CAIDA is a distributed organization and thus cannot depending on shared connectivity costs for the prinicipal technical staff. The lowest cost option will be used to connect remote developers when other access to the internet is unavailable.

    7.0 Results from Previous and Current Awards

    The principal investigator has been working on NSF-funded projects for six years, including a proposal for network analysis (NCR-9119473) that supported her doctoral research. During graduate school and since graduation she has been working with the NSF Division of Networking, Communications and Research Infrastructure (DNCRI) under several funded cooperative agreements and grants. As a member of Hans-Werner Braun's technical staff during his tenure at SDSC, Claffy was closely involved with his focus on NREN Engineering issues in an advisory capacity for DNCRI. The cooperative nature of the association allowed us to focus on NSF mission-specific projects and proposals. In particular, they estabished the NLANR project itself (, which has since considerable attention from the community with respect to networking statistics measurements and analysis issues.

    NLANR has spawned several other infrastructure-related projects: K. Claffy, Hans-Werner Braun (SDSC) and Mark W. Garrett (Bellcore) hosted an NSF-sponsored NLANR workshop on Internet statistics, measurement, and analysis (NSF Proposal/Award number NCR-9530668) (,

    One of the most community visible ongoing NLANR projects is the NLANR caching system (A Distributed Testbed for National Information Provisioning, NSF Proposal/Award number NCR-9521745). (, Co-principal technical investigator Duane Wessels is also involved in the statistics efforts that Caida will embrace.

    The principal investigator is also involved in a project sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM for the development of a prototype for an Internet engineering curriculum repository (, for instructional materials on Internet curricula topics.

    Supporing material and recent events: (Expired Link);

    8.0 References

    1. Baker, F.; Guerin, R.; and Kandlur, D.; Specification of Committed Rate Quality of Service (Expired Link); Internet draft RFC draft-ietf-intserv-commit-rate-svc-00.txt; June 1996.

    2. Mitigating the coming Internet crunch: multiple service levels via Precedence , Roger Bohn, Hans-Werner Braun, K. Claffy, and Stephen Wolff, Journal of High Speed Networks

    3. Hans-Werner Braun and K. Claffy. Insight into current Internet traffic workloads.

    4. Hans-Werner Braun, Robert Aiken (NSF), Peter Ford (LANL) and K. Claffy (SDSC, Editor), NSF Implementation Plan for Interagency Interim NREN, Journal of High Speed Networks, Vol 2, Num 1, 1993.

    5. Hans-Werner Braun, K. Claffy and George C. Polyzos, Application of Sampling Methodologies to Network Traffic Characterization, with K. Claffy and George C. Polyzos ACM SIGCOMM '93, September 1993.

    6. Hans-Werner Braun and Yakov Rekhter (IBM Research), Advancing the NSFNET Routing Architecture, SRI Network Information Center, RFC1222, May 1991.

    7. Hans-Werner Braun and K. Claffy. Web traffic characterization: an assessment of the impact of caching documents from NCSA's web server. In Second international world wide web conference, October 1994.

    8. Brownlee, Nevil, U. of Auckland, Australia; Realtime Traffic Flow Measurement web site with references to RTFM presentations and RFC.

    9. Carpenter, Brian; Metrics for Internet Settlements (Expired Link); Internet draft RFC draft-carpenter-metrics-00.txt; June 1996.

    10. Claffy, K. Monk, T. (NLANR) Cooperation in Internet Statistics Collection (Expired Link); JFK School workshop on Coordination and Administration of the Internet; August 1996.

    11. Claffy, K. and Braun, H.W. (NLANR); and Garrett, Mark; Report of the NSF-sponsored workshop on Internet Statistics Measurement and Analysis; February 1996.

    12. Claffy, K., NLANR; Siegel, Davel, Tucson NAP; and Woodcock, Bill, PCH; A Common Format for the Recording and Interchange of Peering Point Utilization Statistics (Expired Link); white paper presented at NANOG; May 30, 1996.

    13. K. Claffy and Hans-Werner Braun, Post-NSFNET statistics collection, Proceedings of Inet '95,, June 1995.

    14. K. Claffy and Hans-Werner Braun Network analysis issues for a public Internet, SDSC Applied Network Research group, GA-A21350, for the "Public Access to the Internet" workshop at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, May 1993.

    15. K. Claffy, Internet traffic characterization, doctoral thesis, University of California, San Diego, June 1994. Internet traffic characterization: a methodology to support more accurate workload characterization in the face of increasing diversity in Internet traffic types and qualities

    16. K. Claffy, Hans-Werner Braun and George C. Polyzos, Measurement Considerations for Assessing Unidirectional Latencies, Internetworking: Research and Experience, 4:3, September 1993.

    17. K. Claffy, Hans-Werner Braun and George C. Polyzos, Traffic Characteristics of the T1 NSFNET Backbone, IEEE INFOCOM'93, March 1993.

    18. K. Claffy, G. C. Polyzos, and H.-W. Braun. A parametrizable methodology for Internet traffic flow profiling, Mar 1995, IEEE JSAC Special Issue on the Global Internet.

    19. Anawat Chankhunthod, Peter B. Danzig, Chuck Neerdaels, Michael F. Schwartz and Kurt J. Worrell. A Hierarchical Internet Object Cache. Usenix, Jan 96.

    20. Cottrell, Les and Logg, Connie, SLAC; Network Monitoring for the LAN and WAN, paper presented at ORNL, June 24, 1996.

    21. Peter B. Danzig, Richard S. Hall, and Michael F. Schwartz. A case for caching file objects inside internetworks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '93, pages 239--248, September 1993.

    22. Endicott, Don, NCCOSC; ATM Performance Workshop: Metrics, Determinants, and Statistics (Expired Link), presented at the ATM Performance Workshop; June 19, 1996.

    23. ESCC; State of the Internet Report Given at ESnet Site Coordinating Committee (ESCC), May 1996.

    24. FNCAC; FNCAC Recommendations re: Internet Statistics and Metrics (Expired Link), May 1996.

    25. High Energy Physics Community; Letter to the FNC dated March 22, 1996 on Research Use of the Internet.

    26. FNC; FNC Position Statement for the ISMA Workshop, February 1996.

    27. Monk, Tracie, DynCorp and K. Claffy, NLANR; Survey of Internet Statistics/Metrics Activities, presented at meetings: Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) (24 Jun 96), Coordinating Committee for Intercontinental Research Networks (CCIRN) (29 Jun 96), Montreal, Canada.

    28. Moskowitz, Robert; AIAG Position Statement for ISMA Workshop, February 1996.

    29. Paxson, Vern; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Towards a Framework for Defining Internet Performance Metrics, presented at INET '96, June 1996.

    30. John Romkey, editor, Report from the October 1994 Internet Architecture Board (IAB) information infrastructure workshop

    31. XIWT (Cross-Industry Working Team) Internet Performance and Service Quality: User Requirements