Download
1 / 6
60 likes | 63 Views
US LHC Network WG Issues US LHC Network Working Group Meeting 23-24 October 2006 - FNAL. US LHC Network Working Group Production Network Issues (1/2). Implementing, maintaining and evolving the Roadmap Bandwidth and cost evolution Funding
E N D
US LHC Network WG IssuesUS LHC Network Working Group Meeting23-24 October 2006 - FNAL
US LHC Network Working GroupProduction Network Issues (1/2) • Implementing, maintaining and evolving the Roadmap • Bandwidth and cost evolution • Funding • Which links can we rely on for mission-oriented use, and backup ? • Business Model: AUPs, policies and costs (?) related to peerings, permitted flows, preferred flows, limits of use, etc. • The old business model of general shared infrastructures may well not apply • Can we establish the necessary TransAtlantic partnerships ? • Developing a coordinated set of milestones for Production Networking • Incorporating necessary testing and integration steps
US LHC Network Working GroupProduction Network Issues (2/2) • Operational Model: developed in concert with the evolving Computing Models • Specifying T0/T1, T1/T1, T1/T2, T2/T2 and Other network usage scenarios • Priorities and limits of network resource usage for various classes of activities • Policies and allowed data flow paths • Authorized peerings, routing and transit traffic (e.g. Tier1/Tier2, …, Tier4/Tier4 flows; US LHCNet/GEANT peering) • Access to and methods of implementing preferred paths: e.g. routing with diffserv; layer2 VLANs; VCAT/LCAS end-to-end circuit-oriented paths • Other mechanisms (e.g. T2/T1/T1’/T2’ store and forward; or emulation ?)
US LHC Network Working GroupNetwork Development Issues • Developing a coherent Network Development plan, supporting the Production Networking plan • Incorporating the necessary R&D activities and milestones • System-level Infrastructures • Authentication, Authorization, Accounting • Problem reporting, tracking and mitigation • End-to-end monitoring and tracking, of networks and end-systems (e.g. PerfSONAR, MonALISA) • Multi-domain circuit-oriented path construction • Automation to assist with operations and first-line management of the network and end-systems: • Configurations • Error trapping, reporting, diagnosis, mitigation • Deploying agents for diagnosis, problem mitigation, and optimization of operations [to discuss]
US LHC Network Working GroupNetwork Integration Issues • Integrating operations among networks:USLHCNet, Internet2, NLR, ESnet, GEANT; and HEP Lab site networks: CERN, FNAL, BNL, SLAC, LBL, ANL, … • Integrating with the experiments’ production software stacks for dataset distribution and transport (e.g. Phedex) • Integrating with grid software stacks, especially where they include transport services linking storage systems (e.g. dcache/SRM) • Inserting modern network-aware data transport and configuration-optimization tools into the above stacks, as they are developed • Also user-applications as part of the analysis process,at some stage: for example recent developments of the ROOT team with MonALISA and FDT
US LHC Network WG: Long-Term Mission-Driven Bandwidth Issues • LHC bandwidth usage pattern is non-statistical; over-provisioning of general IP backbone infrastructures will not meet the need • This also applies to US Tier2s. Eventually Tier3s ? • Bandwidth exchange and (significant) backup is difficult between mission-oriented and general purpose networks • Operational match (e.g. large backup on demand) ? • Are there costs for peerings, and preferred traffic flows,beyond the costs for dedicated links per se • What is the cost/charging model ?[Will this change by 2010 in next-generation general nets ?] • Need to plan for sufficient bandwidth (and equipment), in different cost-scenarios; explore alternatives.[Note that current pricing information is well-understood] • Some NRENs still charge a lot for 1 GbE links, or less:e.g. Russia, Portugal, Lithuania • Funding outlook and source(s)
