[GHPN-WG] Meeting notes OGF 21
Cees de Laat
delaat at uva.nl
Thu Oct 18 11:44:40 CDT 2007
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
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
> - 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
>- 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.
>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.
>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.
>- 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
> - 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
More information about the ghpn-wg