« Return to Thread: summary of discussions and near term goals
Re: summary of discussions and near term goals
by Deniz Gurkan
::
Rate this Message:
John and all,
1. on component definition:
1a. I agree with "A distinction may be that anything which has a resource available for a GENI researcher to build a slice from should be considered a component." In that context, I think any physical equipment used for monitoring & measuring purposes should be a component too. The measurements will also be part of the resources shared by GENI users. For example, a sensor network integrated into GENI will deliver functional data from its sensors for the process and experimental data measurements for its researchers. In the future, the GENI network might provide these two in an integrated manner - almost like a health monitoring of its own.
2. I think, the concept of "the dependence of external test equipment on substrate components/ architecture" for the measurement equipment makes it a component. Even in the service level with GIMS, measurement equipment will be a resource for the researchers to slice (where possible, maybe with time shifts or functions). Also, researchers need to have access to this resource to update their experiments on-the-fly. If the network is sliced for different experiments, I would imagine some common measurement equipment will also be sliced to measure what is being experimented. Unless the application at the end points will be the main measurement resource for the researchers.. I am not sure if I am on the right track here..
4. Following from my argument above, I think every general component item should have a row added to identify what can be measured with current technology. If there is a way to integrate and build the substrate from scratch with measurement capabilities, I think we need to consider them in the beginning.
The access to these instruments can be an integral part of the design phase instead of patching them on later. On the other hand, integrating measurement at a high granularity might not be possible at the current level of technology for an immediate GENI demonstration. But anything installed will help prove the point of a dividable research experimentation network.
Deniz
1. on component definition:
1a. I agree with "A distinction may be that anything which has a resource available for a GENI researcher to build a slice from should be considered a component." In that context, I think any physical equipment used for monitoring & measuring purposes should be a component too. The measurements will also be part of the resources shared by GENI users. For example, a sensor network integrated into GENI will deliver functional data from its sensors for the process and experimental data measurements for its researchers. In the future, the GENI network might provide these two in an integrated manner - almost like a health monitoring of its own.
2. I think, the concept of "the dependence of external test equipment on substrate components/ architecture" for the measurement equipment makes it a component. Even in the service level with GIMS, measurement equipment will be a resource for the researchers to slice (where possible, maybe with time shifts or functions). Also, researchers need to have access to this resource to update their experiments on-the-fly. If the network is sliced for different experiments, I would imagine some common measurement equipment will also be sliced to measure what is being experimented. Unless the application at the end points will be the main measurement resource for the researchers.. I am not sure if I am on the right track here..
4. Following from my argument above, I think every general component item should have a row added to identify what can be measured with current technology. If there is a way to integrate and build the substrate from scratch with measurement capabilities, I think we need to consider them in the beginning.
The access to these instruments can be an integral part of the design phase instead of patching them on later. On the other hand, integrating measurement at a high granularity might not be possible at the current level of technology for an immediate GENI demonstration. But anything installed will help prove the point of a dividable research experimentation network.
Deniz
John Jacob-2 wrote:All,
Thank you for the recent discussions on this mailing list, it has been
very helpful and we (GPO) are pleased by the level of activity. Below
is a list of comments and questions I believe summarizes the discussion
to date.
1. We need consensus on definitions for all column headings in the excel
spreadsheet. The two which seem to generate the most discussion are
component and sliceable.
1a. One area of confusion with component column was the notion of a
component being constructed from a set of other components, specifically
the network component. As shown in the latest spreadsheet, the
wireless sensor domain may view subnets as a substrate component. There
was also input to this list suggesting that a network could be spatially
separated for isolated experiments, which may also support treating the
network, and other scenarios where a group of components, is itself
treated as a component. I would like the near term focus be to build
consensus on what we mean by component and that we have a complete list
in Column A. Although other columns in the spreadsheet may raise
questions, I would like to suggest an approach to get the list of
components agreed upon. As it currently stands, component and substrate
is somewhat blurred. A distinction may be that anything which has a
resource available for a GENI researcher to build a slice from should be
considered a component.
1b. There was some discussion on links, are these resources of a
"network" component or should we create a separate link component?
1c. I believe "sliceable" is a bad term for a couple of reasons, one is
that the term slice is used in GENI to refer to a specific researchers
collection of GENI resources, and each piece of a resource is called a
sliver. Instead of "sliceable", I will start using dividable (assuming
no objection or other suggestions). I also believe that dividable could
be redundant with resource, since a resource is ideally something that
can be shared across many experiments. If in-fact, a resource is not
dividable, it may be an exception and not the rule. So, in future
versions of this spreadsheet, the dividable column may be deleted.
2. The concept of measurement and how it affects our work in the
substrate-wg, is not presently addressed in the spreadsheet, however it
probably should be included. Currently, I can identify three areas where
measurement distinctions may be drawn; GIMS as a measurement service,
for use in GENI operations and management, and the dependence of
external test equipment on substrate components/architecture. There was
earlier discussion on measurements for cross-layer networking, but I
believe this could be addressed in the following discussion on control
plane.
3. The GENI narrow waist control and operations management entities are
outside the scope of research, and are essential in ensuring a safe and
robust GENI environment. Furthermore, control and management research
will not be allowed to compromise this essential operation. However,
there is significant interest in using GENI for research on control and
management of next generation networks. The research elements of control
and management probably should fall into the substrate-wg activities.
From the perspective of identifying components and resources, how
should we position these network functions?
4. A comment was made that the current substrate-component-resource
hierarchy implied by the worksheet may not be adequate. We are not
constrained by a column count, so we should do whatever makes the most
sense. Hopefully the answer to this will evolve as we populate the
worksheet. To reiterate my previous suggestion, I would like to see the
wg focus on column A (components) first, and we can build from that base.
I believe this captures the discussions thus far, if I have omitted or
missed on the interpretation, please speak up. Attached is the latest
version of the spreadsheet. What is missing, confusing, wrong? Do we
have wireless covered? What about a wireless subnet distinction from
wireless sensor subnets?
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
substrate-wg mailing list
substrate-wg@geni.net
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/substrate-wg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deniz Gurkan, PhD
Assistant Professor
Engineering Technology (Room 230-B)
University of Houston
T: 713-743-4037
dgurkan@uh.edu
http://tech.uh.edu/faculty/gurkan/
Deniz Gurkan, PhD
Assistant Professor
Engineering Technology (Room 230-B)
University of Houston
T: 713-743-4037
dgurkan@uh.edu
http://tech.uh.edu/faculty/gurkan/
« Return to Thread: summary of discussions and near term goals
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
