[ghpn-wg] Fwd: Admela Jukan's presentation

Sat Apr 2 10:51:44 CST 2005

Interesting thread that has fallen off the GHPN reflector for no good
reason. -franco

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cees de Laat <delaat at science.uva.nl>
Date: Apr 1, 2005 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: Admela Jukan's presentation
To: Gigi Karmous-Edwards <gigi at mcnc.org>, "Bill St. Arnaud"
<bill.st.arnaud at canarie.ca>, travos at ieee.org
Cc: chyoun at icu.ac.kr, ebslee at ntu.edu.sg, "Masum Z. Hasan"
<masum at cisco.com>, Leon Gommans <lgommans at science.uva.nl>,
imonga at nortel.com, Admela Jukan <jukan at uiuc.edu>, "Gkarmous at Mcnc. Org"
<gkarmous at mcnc.org>, Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos at surfnet.nl>, Kees
Neggers <Kees.Neggers at surfnet.nl>

To continue in Bill's argumentation: the router prices also plummet.
In such case it is way better to use routed packet networks which are
heavily over-provisioned. This is certainly true for the current
Nortel HDXc which has port-prices not unlike routers. In my model
they should be replaced by mems-devices.
The current implementation of the word "OPTICAL" at some major
connection points seems to me be done by the technology "SONET". I do
not necessarily think that is bad for the world scale (200 ms) but
then just name it so. Experience around sc200x events learns that
reconfiguration may be desired but usually a pretty static lambda
layer is provisioned and scheduling happens at the application layers
(I run on odd hours, you on even hours, etc.).

Is it true currently that although a Lambda may cost 20 kEuro on
certain EU routes that if I need 10 of those on Amsterdam-CERN, I
could get them at that price (plus discount)? In other words, does
that scale or is the reservoir limited?

Best regards,
Cees.

P.S. why is this discussion taken off the GHPN wg list?

>
>On 3/31/05 3:13 PM, "Bill St.Arnaud" <bill.st.arnaud at canarie.ca> wrote:
>
>I enjoyed Admela's presentation on control plane issues.  I think it
>is a good summary of most of the issues. However I would suggest
>there are some areas that may be worth further exploring:
>
>(a)    in addition to applications needing to interact with the
>network physical layer for large data flows, there are some
>situations where it would be advantageous to bring the network into
>the application.  This is a lot different than the network being
>"aware" of the application.  There is a lot of work going on in the
>HPC community to "decompose" large data applications into smaller
>modules which then can be relocated anywhere on the network. However
>in some cases the application modules may still be on the same
>physical machine interconnected by a "virtual" network or pipeline.
>Extending HPC pipeline architectures into network pipes would be
>clearly advantageous.
>(b)    I remain skeptical about reservation and scheduling of
>bandwidth or lightpaths. The cost of wavelengths continues to
>plummet - and it is now cheaper to nail up the bandwidth and leave
>it there sitting idle, rather than paying the high OPEX costs for
>scheduling, reservation, billing etc. For example  I have been
>informed by reliable sources that the annual cost of a 10 Gbps
>wavelength on the new  Geant network will be in the order of 20K
>Euros.  You couldn't hire a graduate student for that price to do
>the scheduling and reservation.  The counter argument is that there
>will be applications where data transfers are infrequent, and buying
>nailed up wavelengths, even at 20k Euros, can't be justified - in
>that case I say use a general purpose routed network.  Given that
>the data transfers are so infrequent, I suspect the slightly longer
>delays of using the routed network can be tolerated.  But I suspect
>most large data flow applications will be from well known and often
>used sources and sinks - so the need for scheduling and reservation
>will be very limited
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ghpn-wg at ggf.org
>[<mailto:owner-ghpn-wg at ggf.org]>mailto:owner-ghpn-wg at ggf.org] On
>Behalf Of Franco Travostino
>Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:44 PM
>To: ghpn-wg at gridforum.org
>Cc: chyoun at icu.ac.kr; ebslee at ntu.edu.sg; Masum Z. Hasan; Leon
>Gommans; imonga at nortel.com; Admela Jukan; Gigi Karmous-Edwards; Cees
>de Laat
>Subject: [ghpn-wg] Fwd: Seoul material is on-line
>
>
>I've been informed that Admela's presentation could not be opened
>with PowerPoint. It turns out that the handoff between Admela and me
>has altered the file's content  somehow.  I have now replaced the
>file in forge.gridforum.org.
>
>For further reference:
>
>/cygdrive/D/GGF13 (19) sum Admela*
>59184  2731 Admela Correct File.ppt
>11383  2731 Admela Damaged File.ppt
>
>-franco
>
>
>
>
>Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:08:06 -0500
>To: ghpn-wg at gridforum.org
>From: Franco Travostino <travos at ieee.org>
>Subject: Seoul material is on-line
>Cc: chyoun at icu.ac.kr, ebslee at ntu.edu.sg, "Masum Z. Hasan"
><masum at cisco.com>, Leon Gommans <lgommans at science.uva.nl>, "inder
>[BL60:418:EXCH] Monga" <imonga at AMERICASM06.nt.com>, Admela Jukan
><jukan at uiuc.edu>, Gigi Karmous-Edwards <gkarmous at mcnc.org>, Cees de
>Laat <delaat at science.uva.nl>
>
>
>The whole GHPN production for GGF13 is available at:
>https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=53&category_id=941
><https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=53&amp;category_id=941>
>
>We've had a lively meeting (we went 10' past the end of our slot
>actually). I hope you will take the time to peruse the minutes and
>the material.
>
>The State of the Drafts that I prepared is thought to be up to date
>(alert me if not) ... it also covers a couple of drafts that have
>been announced even though they didn't make the GGF13 cutoff date.
>See
>https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewProperties.php?group_id=53&category_id=941&document_content_id=3603
><https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewProperties.php?group_id=53&amp;category_id=941&amp;document_content_id=3603>
>
>The GGF13 program featured a couple of interesting BOFs with strong
>network connotation. Kindly enough, both referenced GHPN material.
>
>One was the Firewall and NAT BOF. The room consensus was that it
>should be chartered as a RG.
>
>The other one was the VPN BOF.
>
>On behalf of the GHPN, I invite these groups to use the GHPN
>community as a sounding board for their work.  If they don't get the
>nod from the GFSG, they can also consider using the GHPN as the
>temporary home where to incubate their work further.
>
>-franco
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Gigi Karmous-Edwards
>Principal Scientist
>Advanced Technology Group
>MCNC Grid Computing and Network Services
>RTP , NC, USA
>+ 1 919-248-4121
>gigi at mcnc.org
>--------------------------------------------

--
http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/

-- 
http://www.francotravostino.name