Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Workshop on Network Management and Monitoring Summary

113 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presentació a càrrec de Maria Isabel Gandia, cap de Comunicacions del CSUC, duta a terme al 10è SIG-NOC Meeting, celebrat els dies 13 i 14 de novembre de 2019 a Praga.

Veröffentlicht in: Technologie
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Workshop on Network Management and Monitoring Summary

  1. 1. Workshop on Network Management and Monitoring - Summary www.geant.org Maria Isabel Gandia, CSUC/RedIRIS GN4-3 WP6 T3 / CNaaS 10th SIG-NOC Meeting Prague, 14 November 2019
  2. 2. 2 www.geant.org The Workshop on Network Management and Monitoring • NORDUnet, Copenhagen, 21-22 October (before the STF meeting) • 51 (38 in person + 13 remote) participants • 28 NRENs/countries • Explore several topics: • Organising network management for end-institutions • Tools for end institution management • Monitoring end institution networks • Automating management functions • Four sessions: 1. End institution management: an introduction (Intro+8 LT) 2. End institution network management outsourcing (4) 3. Technical solutions for monitoring of the outsourced networks (3) 4. Technical solutions for network management (2 + conclusions) https://wiki.geant.org/display/PUB/Workshop+on+Network+Management+and+Monitoring
  3. 3. 3 www.geant.org End institution management • 10 years ago – “absolutely no way we are going to do this” • CNaaS initiative from SUNET and UNINETT - NRENs started to plan/offer the service to manage the university campus networks – Campus Network management as a Service • CNaaS – a subtask of GN4-3 WP6T3 (Monitoring and management) • But also… • SURFnet is a pioneer among NRENs in automated management infrastructure • ARNES, CARNET, AMRES, KIFU/Hungarnet are managing parts of the school infrastructures and/or WiFi infrastructures in the end institutions • FUNET manages the CPEs at the institutions • And we heard other NRENs are investigating whether they should go into that direction… • Why did NRENs start to think about and do this?
  4. 4. 4 www.geant.org Tech talent shortage • 63% of senior execs indicated that a talent shortage was a key concern for their organisation.
  5. 5. 5 www.geant.org A retiring baby boomer generation, a deficiency in STEM graduates, and an increase in millennials’ lack of interest in technical careers or a career path New (cool) skills needed
  6. 6. 6 www.geant.org So, what could be the solution?
  7. 7. 7 www.geant.org And the Cloud is not Perfect
  8. 8. 8 www.geant.org So... • End institutions are losing tech people • NRENs are here, we know them, they have a good reputation, let’s ask them…(The same regulation, data privacy rules, no issues as with cloud services) • Pressure from other NREN stakeholders (government) • Adding new services in a situation with a tech talent shortage • So the NRENs are pushed to do more, while suffering from the same problems as end institutions • Automation is one part of the solution
  9. 9. 9 www.geant.org Session 1: Lightning Talks (I) • UNINETT (Vidar Faltinsen), Norway • Dedicated Department for services in the Campus network. • CNaaS services development started this year: improved security and better quality for Campus networks. Running one pilot with a university. • Digitalisation strategy 2017-2021 from the Ministry of Education  use common services. • UNINETT buys the equipment for the customer • Local hands and heads still needed (rack mounting, patching…). UNINETT NOC involved. • CNaaS package: management and monitoring, but also DHCP, NAT, RADIUS, VPN • Planning FW, DNS, IDS • Monitoring/Automation with NAV (developed by UNINETT) • SUNET (Dennis Wallberg), Sweden • 2 full-time developers hired for CNaaS • Initial production planned in early 2020, with one customer. Equipment already procured. • Only greenfield installations, no brownfield • Helpdesk, hands and feet at the university, SUNET NOC second level • Building the NMS/automation architecture • Planning Zero Touch Provisioning in the near future and monitoring with NAV
  10. 10. 10 www.geant.org Session 1: Lightning Talks (II) • FUNET (Asko Hakala), Finland • Started in 2012 with CPE management - 17 customers, 33 routers • 3-person team from January • FUNET Kampus service started in 2019 • 2 big and 7 small deployments • FUNET buys and leases the equipment to the customers • Installation done by the customer (if not, it has a cost). • Everything automated using Ansible, configuration stored in YAML files. • Same alert and monitoring tools as for the Funet network. • SURFNET (Peter Boers), Netherlands • 53 FTE for network (7 full-time developers), 25% externalised. • First Campus service was Surfwireless • Strategy is on SURFNET. Day-to-day management is outsourced to Quanza. • Everything automated, connecting blocks through standardised interfaces.
  11. 11. 11 www.geant.org Session 1: Lightning Talks (III) • ARNES (Matej Vadnjal), Slovenia • Operations  existing NOC team of 5 members. New project planning  external contractors (2 people reviewing the documentation). Software development  dedicated team of 4 members (+1 student) • Already managing the last mile circuit (650 routers, 1,300 switches). • WiFi Project WLAN2020 to provide a centralised managed eduroam/WiFi service in the country for every primary and secondary school. Offering RADIUS as a Service. • ARNES runs the procurement for the equipment, that is owned by the institution. • Expect to manage ~20,000 APs, 2,000 switches, 450 routers, 955 campus networks by 2020. • ARNES network service orchestration stack, automation based on Ansible. • Running brownfield networks is challenging. • CARNET (Darko Parić/Bojan Schmidt), Croatia • E-Schools project started in 2015 • 35,000 APs, 80,000 switches, 70,000 devices (laptops, tablets…), LAN, interactive equipment for classrooms… • Upgrade in the backbone needed. • Everything that can be migrated to the cloud, they pull it out from schools. • 1st level support at school, 2nd level at CARNET, 3rd level at CARNET/vendor. • GDPR 360: system for user data management • Working on automation, Looking for solutions for school LAN management
  12. 12. 12 www.geant.org Session 1: Lightning Talks (IV) • KIFU/HUNGARNET (Attila Gyürke), Hungary • Responsible for all the schools networking. StudentNet programme. • 7,000 monitored CPE devices. • The plan is to insource outsourced services like the call centre. • AMRES (Bojan Jakovljević), Serbia • Three flavours: • CPE management since 2013 (equipment bought and owned by AMRES): 250 CPE routers • AMRES managed wireless infrastructure, since 2014 (donated equipment, owned by AMRES): 6,000 AP installed, 6 controllers (through SP managed services). • LAN infrastructure in schools (2019-2021): Ministry of telecommunication runs tender and buys equipment. In 2020: 15,000 APs, 2021: 24,000 APs (1,500 institutions) • AMRES services are free of charge for the institutions. Best effort. • Fewer engineers. Grown from 290 institutions in 2016 to 1,930 now. • They see the benefits of automation, but are too busy operating the network. • Need to hire and outsource some operational tasks.
  13. 13. 13 www.geant.org Session 2(I): CNaaS Service Definition/Checklist (MI Gandia, CSUC) • What do you need to think about, beyond the technical stuff? • A Service Definition template/checklist, including: • Terminology • Contacts/Roles for the provider and the customer • Service Delivery Model (Service packages, service elements…) • Service Policy (KPI, SLT, Responsibilities…) • Duration, Changes and Termination • Prices and Billing • GDPR Privacy Note • References https://wiki.geant.org/display/gn43wp6/CNaaS+Service+Definition+Template
  14. 14. 14 www.geant.org Session 2(II): Software Architectures • SURFNET network management architecture and orchestration (Peter Boers, SURFNET): • It’s not just automation or CNaaS. Orchestration is the heart of SURFNET8. No CLI provisioning allowed. • Doing orchestration for 2+ years, 100+ products, 2,000+ changes. • Running 3500 background jobs every day to check the network. • Defining processes and workflows correctly is the key. • The orchestrator is a home grown application using python and postgres. • 10 FTE directly involved. • Outsourcing automation software architecture in SUNET (Johan Marcusson, SUNET): • Goals of CNaaS NMS: ZTP • Design principles defined. • Design decisions made: Nornir/NAPALM instead of Ansible, to make the process easier. • Config replace instead of config merge makes the management easier too. • All configurations made via git. First, dry run, then live. • They have run tests in 1,000 mock devices (no customers in production).
  15. 15. 15 www.geant.org Session 2(III): Software Architectures • Outsourcing service Management architecture in FUNET (Asko Hakala, FUNET): • Everything is done using Ansible and Jinja2. Configuration stored in YAML files. • They can configure the routers before sending them. Everything quite standard. • Fully automated. • Important to test before running and have git up-to-date. • Separated customer management server. • The initial configuration is done via a 4G OOB.
  16. 16. 16 www.geant.org • CNaaS dashboard with HTTP and DNS measurements with Linux namespaces (Tsotne Gozalishvili, GRENA) • Monitoring probe in the fixed network. Box that connects to the network. • They visualize results from perfSONAR measurements with the ELK stack. • Several dashboards, like for DNS test results, VLAN status, etc. • WiFiMon: Overview & Summary of Y1 Activities (Nikos Kostopoulos, GRNET/NTUA) • Monitoring probe in the WiFi network. Raspberry Pi devices. • It monitors the performance from the perspective of end users. • Correlating accounting data from RADIUS and performance data from users. • WiFiMon service planned to be released in 2020. Session 3: Monitoring of the Outsourced Networks (I)
  17. 17. 17 www.geant.org Session 3: Monitoring of the Outsourced Networks (II) • Monitoring and alert aggregation (Morten Brekkevold, UNINETT): • Network Monitoring toolkit for campuses since 2006  NAV for CNaaS monitoring. • NAV is not multi-tenant one instance per customer. • Need for SSO support. • They built an aggregator. Developed by students. • Requirements defined by UNINETT.
  18. 18. 18 www.geant.org Session 4: Technical Solutions for Network Management (I) ● NMaaS as a platform for management service outsourcing (Lukasz Lopatowski, PSNC) ● Kubernetes/docker platform for providing per-tenant management apps. ● Suitable for small NRENs and other teams in the GÉANT project. ● Options: supported by GÉANT or NREN deploys its own instance. ● Portfolio: Oxidized, LibreNMS, NAV, Prometheus, Grafana. PerfSONAR soon.
  19. 19. 19 www.geant.org Session 4: Technical Solutions for Network Management (II) ● RENATER's White Box CPE in Normandy Regional network (Xavier Jeanin, RENATER) ● RARE: Router for Academia, Research and Education ● Features developed: IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, SR-MPLS, L3VPN, XConnect, VPLS, EVPN, 6VPE ● No SNMP, but streaming telemetry ● White boxes: ● Switch/router manufactured from commodity components that allows different Network Operating Systems (NOS) to be run on the same piece of hardware (Dell VEP 4600 servers, FRRouting) ● Initially designed for data centre use. ● Use case in the Normandy Regional network, for school CPE routers. ● Features: BGP peering, IGP, VLAN, Logical interface, VRF lite, management (SSH, Syslog, SNMPv2) and security (line-rate IPv4/IPv6 L3 ACLs, Broadcast storm protection) ● Ansible based automation
  20. 20. 20 www.geant.org Some Conclusions (I) ● NRENs are pushed to offer CNaaS services, without increasing the number of employees: ● The use of automation is key to allow these services to grow. ● Some NRENs are also outsourcing some functions to offer CNaaS services. ● Services can differ from NREN to NREN, there’s no single approach: CNaaS, e-Schools, WiFi2020, management of CPEs… ● User groups define the functionalities of a service - a service can differ per user group inside the same NREN.
  21. 21. 21 www.geant.org Some Conclusions (II) ● What can the GÉANT project do? ● Sharing information is important: organise more meetings to share stories and how-to guides. ● Having a set of recommendations to create Service Definition documents is useful. ● Contributions from multiple people (including students' work) is managed through fully integrated CI/CD (Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery), code audits, well defined and regularly executed tests. ● Kubernetes/docker based multi-tenant app provisioning seems to be the way forward (NMaaS). ● A very lightweight perfSONAR (on rPi) for monitoring boxes could be useful, perhaps integrated with WiFiMon on the same device.
  22. 22. Thank you www.geant.org Any questions? © GÉANT Association on behalf of the GN4 Phase 3 project (GN4-3). The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 856726 (GN4-3).

×