Re:Re: [ghpn-wg] About goal of the GHPN-RG

Hi Michael, I think networking technology of GHPN-RG's goal is not your mentioned technology of L4 layer. The networking technology should especially be underlying network technology of L1,L2 and L3 layer . But i am confused if we build a relationship between underlying network and grid applications,we can call that grid applications utilize networking features . Regards, Andrew.
Hi,
I also don't know why this group is so silent; I can only speak for myself: I'm too busy with too many things at the same time to discuss a lot here right now :( but I expect to be more active in a few months.
Regarding your question about Grid applications that require advanced networking features - I think that this is the wrong question to ask.
No multimedia application *requires* RTP, RTCP, SIP or DCCP (i.e. couldn't work without it).
Does this make these protocols useless? No: they enhance the situation, but you couldn't say that they are "required".
Same for Grids. Grid applications are typically written to work in the environment they are run - but that doesn't mean that it would be useless to enhance the network for them.
Cheers, Michael
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 05:37, wangdonghui 52440 wrote:
Hi all, GHPN-WG is inactive for a long time .What's wrong. In addition to,i have a confused problem.One goal of the GHPN- RG is that advanced networking features that are not being utilized by grid applications. I could not understand entirely .Would you please give some examples of grid applications that require these advanced networking features.
Thanks in advance. Andrew.

Hi, While you're certainly right about the relevance of L1, L2 and L3, and the fact that my examples were only about L4 and above (this is my personal focus), I don't think that we should exclude L4 in the GHPN-RG. Regarding this statement,
But i am confused if we build a relationship between underlying network and grid applications,we can call that grid applications utilize networking features .
I didn't understand what you're saying here - what exactly are you confused about? Cheers, Michael
participants (2)
-
Michael Welzl
-
wangdonghui 52440