[GHPN-WG] Meeting notes OGF 21

[Cees de Laat]

Thanks Freek!

If no-one has objections I upload this also next to the slides on the 
meeting materials web site. Please mail me if something needs to be 
corrected.

best regards,
Cees.

At 17:59 -0700 17-10-2007, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>In the spirit of "Anything you say will be misquoted and used against
>you", here are the meeting notes.
>
>I tried to be a bit extensive, for the people at GridNets.
>
>Meeting notes GHPN
>==================
>OGF 21, wednesday, 2007 Oct 18
>
>* Slides will shortly be uploaded to
>   http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=959
>* Attendents:
>     - Jason Zurawski
>     - Richard Hughes-Jones
>     - Licia Florio
>     - Wolfgang Ziegler
>     - Cedeyn
>     - Costes Kotsokalis
>     - Debbie Montano
>     - Ralph Niederberger
>     - Inder Monga
>     - Martin Swany
>     - Freek Dijkstra
>     - Cees de Laat
>
>Document status
>---------------
>- Use cases document by Tiziana Ferrari
>     - Gone through public comment
>     - One favourable comment in tracker
>- G-UNI draft
>     - See presentation (below)
>- G-OBS document
>     - At external expert reviewers.
>     - Richard Highes-Jones will try to get this through the
>       document process.
>     - Short debate on the viability of Optical Burst Switching.
>
>Charter
>-------
>Cees de Laat thinks the charter needs to be updated. There is
>still a need to think about beyond hybrid networking, either bottom-up
>(migration from an e-mail-based "control plane" to automated lambda
>set-up) or high-level thinking. By now, middleware projects start to
>emerge where CPU, storage and networking are co-scheduled.
>
>Richard Hughes-Jones: We need to make grid community aware that
>the network is not a static thing that "is just there", and that
>GHPN is one of few places where network people and grid people meet.
>
>Action: This discussion is taken to the mailing list.
>
>G-UNI presentation
>------------------
>Slides by George Zervas (Univ of Essex) et al., <gzerva at essex.ac.uk>
>Cees the Laat presents, since none of the authors is present at the OGF.
>
>See slides.
>
>- Slide 8 (proposal for a generic G-UNI architecture)
>   - Debbie Montano asks: who is going to implement this?
>     G-Lambda, Phosporous, Enlightened need this. They probably will.
>     G-UNI is an abstraction layer. A common G-UNI allows easier
>     interaction between different software/ projects.
>   - Inder Monga likes to standardize the communication between Grid
>     users and Middleware, rather than between middleware and network
>     control plane, as this slides seems to indicate.
>   - A short discussion on the scope follows.
>     Richard Hughes-Jones reminds use that there are standard interface
>     to request CPU. Someone notes that this is not (yet) true for the
>     network.
>   - Richard Hughes-Jones: this is a research group, not a working group.
>     It defines architecture, not protocols or implementations.
>     Cees de Laat notes that the mailing list is claled GHPN-WG, instead
>     of GPHN-RG for historical reasons.
>   - Martin Swany: We need to reach out, to other groups.
>- Slide 9: (Grid Network overlay Architecture I.)
>   - The audiance and presenter are confused by the label "GUNI
>     (transport)" on the lower left of the slide. It is suggested that
>     the GUNI signalling is in-band, and transported over the lower
>     actual network. Richard Hughes-Jones says that signalling can't be
>     in-band, since signals are transmitted before a connection is set up.
>     The presenter looks confused, and resolves the issue by skipping to
>     the next slide.
>
>Cees de Laat is not 100% of the status. He thinks it was already ready
>for internal review by the working group since the previous OGF, but
>suspects it has not gone to that status since everyone is busy.
>
>Richard Hughes-Jones appreciates the overview that the work gives, but
>sees a risk that it is overly complex. Cees de Laat agrees: It states
>a lot together. Cees thinks that publication as informational document
>is good basis to move forward for grid middleware projects. It shows
>to grid people how to deal with network resources.
>
>Martin Swany suggests to change the name of the document. It reads as
>if it specified *THE* G-UNI, while it specifies *A* UNI. Suggestions
>are: "Discussion of G-UNIs" or "A UNI study". Richard Hughes-Jones
>and Inder Monga agree.
>
>Phoebus presentation by Martin Swany
>------------------------------------
>- There is a gap between backbone bandwidth and the actual perceived
>   TCP throughput: the "bandwidth gap"
>- Single TCP streams are important (despite GridFTP, alternative
>   transport protocols, etc.).
>- Phoebos segments the transport. It uses OSI session layer.
>- Buffering of data in the network.
>- 3 segments: access network+ core + access network. TCP
>   termination close to user gives better performance.
>     - Martin sees a simularity with "burst switching"
>- Connection negotiation, as required in this concept, removes
>   need for a firewall, if authenticated.
>- Martin argues that the end-to-end arguments may no longer apply
>   - bring back state in network
>   - Cees de Laat cares about the feedback: he wants to know for
>     sure that the data is arrived at the destination, and wonders
>     who closes the connections: the first hop or the final
>     destination. If the first hop, how to make sure all data
>     arrived at the destination?
>- Martin stresses that "an adaptation layer atop the existing IP
>   network is a viable path to innovation", and plugs this approach
>   as a "Do-it-yourself-GENI"
>
>Cees closes the sessions and hopes to see everyone at the next meeting.
>--
>   ghpn-wg mailing list
>   ghpn-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ghpn-wg


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