imonga at nortel.com
Tue Jul 12 15:54:14 CDT 2005
Sorry for the delay. Attached are the cleaned up minutes (almost no names
Pramila, I can send you the word file if you want to upload it to the
Telco CG Notes
GGF14, June 29th, 2005
Franco kicks off the meeting
Area Director Question: mailing list name (telco-cg at ggf.org) versus group
name (Telecom Community Group).
Consensus: Leave things the way they are
Pramila presents details:
- Agenda : no comments
- Distribution list is up telco-cg at ggf.org <mailto:telco-cg at ggf.org>
- See slides for details (should be on the website later)
- Telco roles and network types grid presented
o A survey of customer urgency
o Both technical and business enablers
o Capture use cases and develop roadmap
Q: Clarification on managed grid service
A: Managed compute and network resources like utility computing
Q: Who participated in the past meeting?
A: FT, BT, Deutshe Telecom, Telecom Italia
Last GGF, lot of Asian telecom operators in Korea
Not too many telcos from US in the last
2 questions: Why is it called CG rather than WG or RG?
A: WG produce standards. RG focused on particular technical issues. CG: new
category, promote the adoption, use, understanding
Chairs: Chicken in egg issue between technical and business people.
Technical cannot work where business people say there is money and vice
versa business people look to technical people for feasibility
Q. Is there any need for anything other than best effort IP for Grid
A. What is you basis for making that conclusion?
Q. Based on GHPN working group doing research, not seen pull by the Grid
A. Efforts in NRENs to do both IP and optical. Valuable example. Other
example is Enterprises that buy dark fiber and build private networks. They
are interested in other experiences than best effort IP.
Q. What you are saying is coming from the network research community.
Outreach to the grid community needed to make the value-proposition clear.
Q: Is that the difference between EGA and GGF. Paul Strong from Sun Micro
who said it is all about service level objectives for grid service. It is
for the Grid users to decide if that is true or not.
A: EGA is saying we need service level objectives now
Q. Today's picture we can get away from best effort IP. What about tomorrow?
Comment: Focus of EGA is commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprise is not
satisfied with best effort. Service level requirements are essential. GGF is
looking further out. For grids to be adopted universally, service level
requirements need to be there. Europe and UK are looking at opportunities
for Grid Service Provisioning and will be valid in the commercial market if
you have guarantees.
Chairs Answer: June a person from Deutsche Telecom presented an example of
entertainment. To create a scene with animated crowds - 10 terabytes of data
and 10 million CPU cycles. Schedule is very important (release schedule) -
see a huge spike in usage as deadline approaches. With 30TBof data cant hope
for INTERNET or best effort IP. Infrastructure that we are trying to
understand - is it real or not? Understand from the community.
Q: What about interest from ISPs like Internet2, Geant etc?
Answer 1: Grid NREN provider: Interest exists. Connection between NRENs and
Grids. In Europe, NRENs established provider of grids - very close synergy
between researchers and network providers. On other hand, no demand for
service level agreements. Mostly research context and not in a commercial
Answer 2: New research experiments like LOFAR etc. Routers are very
expensive and want to route traffic around the routers. Makes sense to give
them its own pipes. Huge interest for NRENs to go to dark fibers. One of the
research topics at GLIF is to make these pipes dynamic or for a shorter time
period than a longer time period/permanent. What grid users want is to
execute a workflow in a set amount of time - their goal is to do science.
These kind of workflows can translate into requirements to the network into
quality expected from the network that cannot be satisfied by best effort
network. High energy physics require high bandwidth connections to tier 1
and tier 2 sites.
Question: Short holding time for calls like circuit switching. What is it?
Answer: Starplane - sub second DWDM switching between computer clusters.
Chairs: there is a gap between what NRENs are saying and the telcos. The
NRENs do good work and write papers and vendors that are producing equipment
for telcos have a different set of requirements. The gap needs to be closed
and the CG should have network vendors, network providers, etc. Now we are
seeing network participation.
Comment: In the grid space a lot of research on collocation of cpus and
storage/data. We want to add the network element into that picture..want to
collocate lambda cpus and storage. Cost functions to determine where to
place storage and CPU with network not being just a constant function.
Chairs: the service offerings will depend on the business case.
Comment: Demand for network capacities will evolve organically. LHC, NRENs
is onesy - twosy cases with decade intervals. Then if you take those away
then enabler to grid providers goes away. User of grid internally: it is
upto the telco to decide whether to use grid internally or not using
standard grid software. Provider of managed grid services with C should be
the first area to look at.
Chairs: your ideas resonate with the prior discussions. But we want to
capture all the cases. Prioritizing will put us in lot of discussion and
debate in arbitary context. We need to have this discussion with more data.
Reach out to user community and ask about their requirements and pain
Comment: excellent posture to take at this point. I feel like asking
fundamental questions. What is the user for Provider of managed grid
services roles? You have so many grids out there.
Chairs: it will be from perspective of telco, telco users.
Comment: There are people who are providing grid services, are you going to
compete with them?
Chairs: it is possible that a telco who is in direct competition in role 3
with another provider who is using telco services from a telco in role 1. We
capture the role of intermediary but a telco can choose whether or not to
play that role. User community can say we do not need a particular
role...How do we break the user communities down, how do we reach out to
them and get requirements
Comment: Make a distinction between a Grid Service Provider and Network
Service Provider? A Grid Service BU within a telco will use the network
same way as IBM or HP..as a user getting a function.
Chairs: there is some confusion here. We perhaps need to have a white paper
that very clearly defines what we mean by this. What is meant by managed
grid service and grid enabled service provider?
Role 3 was a Grid Service Provider providing it as a managed service.
BT has already announced that.
Am on-demand service is a utility computing model. Managed grid service is
where the assets are owned by the enterprise but not managed by the
Chairs: in interest of time lets talk about next steps.
Chairs: Review the charter milestones and agree on it.
Bob Cohen to walk us through the next two items
Discussion on sponsorship. Can SSA be involved in this?
Comment: Huge amount of time. Managing them is very time consuming
Bob: Proposal is quite clear but it will be still a lot of work. Fair amount
Will some companies here participate in theproposal and put it together?
2 - 3 day workshop extensive program. Can be series of workshops
NTT: Managed connectivity can be realized by managed connections. I prefer
the second role...F. Dynamic path provisioning or path provisioning.
Bob: Perhaps there should be several different questionnaires for use cases.
Three different interview questionnaires to focus in on issues.
NTT: Benefit to find out characteristic of each service types but we should
get priority. We should discuss and prioritize the switch service type as
first priority. Some kind of converged discussion, focus is necessary.
From: owner-telco-cg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-telco-cg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
MULLAN Pramila RD-ILAB-SSF
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 2:49 PM
To: telco-cg at ggf.org
Subject: [telco-cg] minutes
we had two minute takers from the last telco-cg f2f at GGF 14. Could you
please forward the meeting minutes to the group.
Research & Development San Francisco
Director Web Services & Intermediation
801 Gateway Boulevard, Suite #500
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Fax: +1 650-875-1505
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the telco-cg