Minutes of OGF23 meetings
Grid High Performance Networking RG (OGF23) ------------------------------------------- Note-takers: Jeroen van der Ham and Freek Dijkstra Agenda: - Phosphorus - Sergi Figuerola (i2CAT) - Harmony Demonstration - Joan Antoni García (i2CAT) - Future research topics discussion No notes on the presentations -- hopefully gridforge is up again, and the slides can be uploaded. Harmony is the software developed in Phosphorus WP1. Joan showed the GUI, and created connections between Spain and Germany and between Spain and Canada. Cees de Laat initiated a discussion on the future research topics. There are 4 BOFS in Infrastructure at this OGF. Apparently, networking is moving from research to work group. This is a success for the GHPN. The GHPN should (re)consider its scope. Suggestions: - Addressing and naming (in the demo, private IPv4 addresses were used for both. NDL and NML use URI and URNs). - Franco Travostino: Mobile networks. IETF is working on this, but on the other hand OGF would have different use-cases. - Inder Monga: Multi-point to multi-point network services instead of point-to-point links. Cees de Laat gives a short example were the order of two path requests matters if the request is successful or not. The UNI needs to handle combined requests (asking for multiple links in the same request). Cees proposes to have a mini-workshop at one of the next GHPN meetings to see which tracks have the interest in the community.
Ammended minutes: Note-takers: Jeroen van der Ham and Freek Dijkstra Agenda: - Phosphorus - Sergi Figuerola (i2CAT) - Harmony Demonstration - Joan Antoni García (i2CAT) - Future research topics discussion No notes on the presentations -- hopefully gridforge is up again, and the slides can be uploaded. Harmony is the software developed in Phosphorus WP1. Joan showed the GUI, and created connections between Spain and Germany and between Spain and Canada. Cees de Laat initiated a discussion on the future research topics. There are 4 BOFS in Infrastructure at this OGF. Apparently, networking is moving from research to work group. This is a success for the GHPN. The GHPN should (re)consider its scope. Suggestions: - Addressing and naming (in the demo, private IPv4 addresses were used for both. NDL and NML use URI and URNs). -Dimitra: ghpn should open its consideration to wider user communities (not only lambda service users) and look at scaling capabilities and interfacing issues of different technologies. i.e. the heterogenity cosiderations should also extend to mobile/wireless domains. - Franco Travostino: Mobile networks. IETF is working on this, but on the other hand OGF would have different use-cases. - Inder Monga: Multi-point to multi-point network services instead of point-to-point links. Cees de Laat gives a short example were the order of two path requests matters if the request is successful or not. The UNI needs to handle combined requests (asking for multiple links in the same request). Cees proposes to have a mini-workshop at one of the next GHPN meetings to see which tracks have the interest in the community. -- ghpn-wg mailing list ghpn-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ghpn-wg
Dear all, I wasn't there at the meeting (not at OGF), but just saw this statement in the minutes:
Cees proposes to have a mini-workshop at one of the next GHPN meetings to see which tracks have the interest in the community.
While this sounds like a good idea to me, why not (perhaps additionally) organize a GHPN-workshop together with GridNets? We are currently looking for workshop organizers. See: http://www.gridnets.org/ for more details, and interpret the workshop proposal deadline as "officially just passed, not completely true, but definitely ultra urgent now" Please submit your workshop proposal, well, TOMORROW :-) Cheers, Michael PS: yes we're also expecting you to submit a paper to GridNets, the deadline is just around the corner.
Simeonidou, Dimitra wrote:
-Dimitra: ghpn should open its consideration to wider user communities (not only lambda service users) and look at scaling capabilities and interfacing issues of different technologies. i.e. the heterogenity considerations should also extend to mobile/wireless domains.
Dimitra, thanks! Quite a few suggestions actually; I'm sorry to have left them out (at least, now the best is saved till last). I think your comment on scalability is particularly dead on. Today, I've seen an impressive list of control planes, including multi-domain control planes. Unfortunately, I do not think any will scale to the scale of the Internet. AutoBAHN and Phosphorous for example have a database of all domains and their interrelation. The same applies for interdomain GMPLS. To quote RFC 4655 (section 4.9.1), about the scalability of GMPLS: "[the path computation architecture] is not considered to be a solution that is applicable to the entire Internet. That is, the applicability of [this architecture] is limited to a set of domains with known relationships." I think this statement applies for all control planes at the moment. With NDL, we have created a distributed topology database. However, that is only part of the scaling problem. Other solutions may include abstraction of multiple domains, hierarchy of addressing (such as IP addresses). Remember that the number of constraints is a lot larger though: topology constraints, technology constraints, scheduling constrains, policy constraints, etc. And that's just for network resources, ignoring computing and storage resources that a meta-scheduler needs to take into account. I think this is a worthwhile research topic, and the timing is right. It has been shown that multi-domain control planes are possible. Now is the time to investigate if this can scale up to 1000s of domains. Regards, Freek Dijkstra
Hi all, I couldn't agree more with all of this. Being a networking person, but not really from the "optical world", who got into Grids, I was heavily disappointed that 90% or more of the work goes into the direction of letting end systems participate in GMPLS-style signaling. This (as you rightly state) cannot scale, at least not to sizes that some Grid people are dreaming of. To me, it's a key aspect of the Grid that it should run over the Internet, not some dedicated (or half-dedicated, possibly IP based) network. However, it seems to me that "Grid Networking" is usually not "Grid InterNetworking", and this is why we have that in the name of our European project EC-GIN: http://www.ec-gin.eu where doing network research for truly Internet-based (i.e. scalable!) Grids is the focus. With a few exceptions (e.g. Grid-specific network measurements), developing Internet mechanisms for Grids has two major practical hurdles, though: 1. a lot of this work involves changing the TCP/IP stack, which seems impractical in many Grids today, where administrators often dismiss code if it even requires root access 2. developing truly new and suitable network mechanisms is a long-term effort, involving modeling etc. (we still don't know how to properly simulate a Grid, including a full flavored network simulation - e.g. ns-2 with Grid traffic), and no 100% guarantee of deployable code even after a Ph.D. thesis - in my opinion there's a funding gap here, because no Grid project could enable such work. Well again, this is why we have our project, but I truly believe that we're quite an exception here, and even we were asked to deliver working code earlier than we wanted and planned. Some work should go into fixing these two problems. My 2 cents... Cheers, Michael PS: risking to get on your nerves by mentioning that again - but really, this focus on scalable, Internet-centric network things for Grids is what I've been propagating for the GridNets conference since I became involved, so this is the ideal venue for such results - if you have something, please submit a paper to us! On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 18:19 +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Simeonidou, Dimitra wrote:
-Dimitra: ghpn should open its consideration to wider user communities (not only lambda service users) and look at scaling capabilities and interfacing issues of different technologies. i.e. the heterogenity considerations should also extend to mobile/wireless domains.
Dimitra, thanks! Quite a few suggestions actually; I'm sorry to have left them out (at least, now the best is saved till last). I think your comment on scalability is particularly dead on.
Today, I've seen an impressive list of control planes, including multi-domain control planes. Unfortunately, I do not think any will scale to the scale of the Internet. AutoBAHN and Phosphorous for example have a database of all domains and their interrelation. The same applies for interdomain GMPLS.
To quote RFC 4655 (section 4.9.1), about the scalability of GMPLS: "[the path computation architecture] is not considered to be a solution that is applicable to the entire Internet. That is, the applicability of [this architecture] is limited to a set of domains with known relationships."
I think this statement applies for all control planes at the moment.
With NDL, we have created a distributed topology database. However, that is only part of the scaling problem. Other solutions may include abstraction of multiple domains, hierarchy of addressing (such as IP addresses). Remember that the number of constraints is a lot larger though: topology constraints, technology constraints, scheduling constrains, policy constraints, etc. And that's just for network resources, ignoring computing and storage resources that a meta-scheduler needs to take into account.
I think this is a worthwhile research topic, and the timing is right. It has been shown that multi-domain control planes are possible. Now is the time to investigate if this can scale up to 1000s of domains.
Regards, Freek Dijkstra -- ghpn-wg mailing list ghpn-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ghpn-wg
As a side note, I try to get the gni-wg mailing list started as the venue for people to discuss the unified charter. Please get on that mailing list when it is created (hopefully later today). In the notes need to change: - Franco Travostino: Cloud networks use cases. thanks, best regards, cees. At 16:16 +0200 04-06-2008, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Grid High Performance Networking RG (OGF23) -------------------------------------------
Note-takers: Jeroen van der Ham and Freek Dijkstra
Agenda: - Phosphorus - Sergi Figuerola (i2CAT) - Harmony Demonstration - Joan Antoni García (i2CAT) - Future research topics discussion
No notes on the presentations -- hopefully gridforge is up again, and the slides can be uploaded.
Harmony is the software developed in Phosphorus WP1. Joan showed the GUI, and created connections between Spain and Germany and between Spain and Canada.
Cees de Laat initiated a discussion on the future research topics. There are 4 BOFS in Infrastructure at this OGF. Apparently, networking is moving from research to work group. This is a success for the GHPN. The GHPN should (re)consider its scope.
Suggestions:
- Addressing and naming (in the demo, private IPv4 addresses were used for both. NDL and NML use URI and URNs). - Franco Travostino: Mobile networks. IETF is working on this, but on the other hand OGF would have different use-cases. - Inder Monga: Multi-point to multi-point network services instead of point-to-point links. Cees de Laat gives a short example were the order of two path requests matters if the request is successful or not. The UNI needs to handle combined requests (asking for multiple links in the same request).
Cees proposes to have a mini-workshop at one of the next GHPN meetings to see which tracks have the interest in the community. -- ghpn-wg mailing list ghpn-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ghpn-wg
participants (4)
-
Cees de Laat -
Freek Dijkstra -
Michael Welzl -
Simeonidou, Dimitra