Global Lambda Integrated Facility

Subject Re: Network Control Architecture
From Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:46:19 +0200


This framework seems an interesting startingpoint to work toward a
common architecture. I think the important point we need to agree on is
what kind of components need to be present in the architecture. For
example, the second slide lists all the important components for a DNRM,
but it will depend on the implementation how they are tied together. We
really should focus on the interfaces presented to the outside.

The amount of different interfaces listed in the first slide seems
staggering. I am certain that the architecture as listed there does not
scale. The resource broker has to know about all different kinds of
interfaces, and it is also impossible for one domain to maintain
information about all the different resources in other domains. Combine
that with policy restrictions and the equation becomes even more complex.

The way forward really seems to be using a central broker[1] for the
domain, with a standardised interface to other brokers. I agree that we
should aim to do this first for network resources, and then we can see
how this can be extended for other resources.

I completely agree that the interfaces should be generic and not Grid
specific. The reason why we're using the OGF as standardization body is
because they are already doing related things in the Network
Measurements WG[2].

I would like to invite everyone to the first session of the Network
Markup Language WG at OGF 20, May 9th in Manchester.


[1]: "Central broker" in the sense that applications will know how to
approach the domain. This does not necessarily imply that it should be
one single services or single point of failure.
[2]: Note that the charter of the Network Markup Language WG only
contains the word "Grid" once, in the term "Open Grid Forum".