[GHPN-WG] Grid Networks: On demand or virtual?

Thu Oct 18 12:21:10 CDT 2007

Cees:

You may be interested in my presentation at Grid networks. "Grid Networks:
On demand or virtual?"

http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/recent_presentations.html

As you know I have long argued against on demand or schedule bandwidth
networks for grids such as DRAC, HOPI, JRA3, etc.  On demand suffers from
inherent complexity, the difficult issues of doing inter-domain, call
blocking,  etc etc

I have always argued that for short duration flows a generic IP routed
network with advanced TCP is for more efficient and practical.

For long duration or persistent flows I think we are seeing an increased
trend towards virtual networks - something we have long advocated with our
UCLP (Agria) program

I am now pleased to see that EU is moving in this direction with the
recently announced 4WARD program

http://www.emobility.eu.org/Events/2007-09-04_PIMRC_Conference_Athens/Genera
l_4WARD_public.pdf

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ghpn-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ghpn-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
> Of Cees de Laat
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 12:45 PM
> To: Freek Dijkstra; ghpn-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [GHPN-WG] Meeting notes OGF 21
> 
> 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/
> --
>   ghpn-wg mailing list
>   ghpn-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ghpn-wg