1 / 13

NMC-WG Session 2

October 28 th 2010, OGF 30 Jason Zurawski – Internet2 Roman Lapacz – PSNC/GÉANT3. NMC-WG Session 2. OGF IPR. “ I acknowledge that participation in this meeting is subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy.”

jaxon
Download Presentation

NMC-WG Session 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. October 28th 2010, OGF 30 Jason Zurawski – Internet2 Roman Lapacz – PSNC/GÉANT3 NMC-WG Session 2

  2. OGF IPR • “I acknowledge that participation in this meeting is subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy.” • Intellectual Property Notices Note Well: All statements related to the activities of the OGF and addressed to the OGF are subject to all provisions of Appendix B of GFD-C.1, which grants to the OGF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in OGF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: • the OGF plenary session, • any OGF working group or portion thereof, • the OGF Board of Directors, the GFSG, or any member thereof on behalf of the OGF, • the ADCOM, or any member thereof on behalf of the ADCOM, • any OGF mailing list, including any group list, or any other list functioning under OGF auspices, • the OGF Editor or the document authoring and review process • Statements made outside of a OGF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an OGF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. • Excerpt from Appendix B of GFD-C.1: ”Where the OGF knows of rights, or claimed rights, the OGF secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the GFSG of the relevant OGF document(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The working group or research group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the OGF secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of document, except that the GFSG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the OGF Secretariat, and made available. The GFSG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any GFD published containing the specification.” • OGF Intellectual Property Policies are adapted from the IETF Intellectual Property Policies that support the Internet Standards Process.

  3. Overview • Circuit Monitoring • Other Topics • Advertising Capabilities? • Streaming? • Other?

  4. Circuit Monitoring • Idea: • Monitoring dynamic circuit networks • Approach: • Idea 1: Constant monitoring of the devices – feedback from the network control software to tie performance metrics to specific circuit lifetimes/locations • Idea 2: On demand monitoring – tight feedback loop from the network control software to the monitoring • Requirements: • Use of the same protocols for communication (NMC) • Use of the same protocols for data representation (NM) • Use of the same protocols for topology descriptions (NML) • First use of NML schemas in production?(!)

  5. Circuit Monitoring • Current Status: • Working in the DICE consortium (Dante Internet2 ESnet (Caltech|Canarie) to define requirements • Architecture: • pS MDM has a proposal • pS PS has a proposal • Proposed approaches have some differences, need to find common ground on at least: • Protocols/Data/Topology Descriptions • Role of the Information Services (LS/TS) • “What is important about a circuit” • Descriptors/IDs etc.

  6. Protocols/Data/Topology • Storage • Use the NM formats (of course!) • Communication • Use NMC protocols (of course!) • Topology • Use NML (hopefully!) • IDC (OSCARS/ION) Representation of Topology • ‘close’ to NML, needs upgrades • AutoBAHN representation of topology • Not really close to NML (very specific use cases) • Internal vs External topo (problems in presenting data in either case) • What to do? • Could either Circuit System change? Probably not… • Conversions? • Different ways of presenting the data?

  7. Role of the TS/LS • Both Projects • hLS/gLS Abstraction • Topology Service • Differs by projects • cNIS • Not implemented as pS originally • Want to use this to store passwords/configuration information • pSPS TS • Uses old (*old*) version of NM/NML topology • Simple add/query/delete (like LS) • Idea • Re-define the roles of LS/TS?

  8. What is important about a Circuit? • ID(s) • GLIF Style • Other Styles • Name(s) • Depends on the domain, or fall baclk to ID • Descriptive Info • Domain specific – should still be able to find/read (with proper permissions) • Lifetimes – when did we start/end • Components (if applicable)

  9. IDs • See other venues for how to construct … not going to redefine that • Ideas: • Need to be able to tie an ID to real set of information • Need to be able to get the id of the circuit (and possible circuit information) from each domain • Use of the same type everywhere? • Hard – IDC vs AutoBAHN have different types • Different types + Mechanical trasnlation • Will work, service to do so? • LS? TS? MA?

  10. Advertising Capabilities • Main idea: Changing the way that services advertise what they can do to the IS infrastructure • From the last call: • serviceType needs to be fixed(?) • Still used, but change the structure of what the types look like • Standards? Still need for backwards compat. for pS Services • Services should not just have ‘types’, should be advertising capabilities • E.g. I can ‘perform’ measurements of metric ‘x’ • Advertise the protocol that a services speaks (e.g. MP protocol) • Message Types • Advertise the metrics (already done via eventTypes, be consistent though…) • Role of keywords (tied to data, tied to service, both?) • Implications of changes? • Next Steps?

  11. Streaming • Main idea: XML may not be the best medium to transfer large amounts of data. Have an NMC message to set up a streaming exchange? • Attempts from HADES (others?) in the past • Not standard • Proposal: Message sets up the ‘data channel’ specifics between the parties. Stop/Start messages? External channel is up to the parties or does that need to still be regulated by NMC (probably). • Ideas/Discussion?

  12. Others? • ?

  13. NMC-WG Session 2 October 28th 2010, OGF 30 Jason Zurawski – Internet2 Roman Lapacz – PSNC/GÉANT3 For more information, visit https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/nmc-wg

More Related