Subject: Re: [cso] Some thoughts from the CSO Bar BOF...

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:37:16 +0100

Hi,

I participated in both Bar BoFs and I believe that in the area of Cross-Layer 
Optimization is still a lot of space to do thing better but I don't believe 
in a generic approach. 
I would like to response to the points below and also give some feedback to 
the charter. First the points below:

(a) If you would have the global system view which has all the information 
about the application and the network state, I'm sure its possible to 
optimize the system such that all players will benefit. But we are talking 
here about a distributed system where every player tries to maximize its own 
benefit. I would say even if you provide the needed information you can't be 
sure that automatically everybody will benefit. Moreover, you would have to 
give for every player the right incentives to actually make a decision that 
will optimize the whole system and not only the benefit of one single player.
Moreover, if you have several entities/different point in different layers 
which make decisions based on the same information, you have to be very 
careful that those decisions will not be counterproductive. E.g. an 
application changes the coding to lower bitrate and the network reserves more 
capacity at the same time. It's basically impossible to show the stability of 
such a complex system. It's already hard to make any stability investigations 
about multi-protocol networks.

(b) I still don't get your point here. As you say 'best effort' means that you 
always try to get the maximum but you never know what the maximum is/what you 
get. This doesn't go in-line for me with any kind of services guarantees. If 
you want guarantees you can use e.g. resource reservation. But than you know 
exactly what you get and you don't need any further cross-layer state 
information.

(c) You say: '... definition of a "data center" as something like "a location 
within the network where application resources maybe aggregated". What? 
Is 'the network' in your case the Internet? I would say a data center is not 
in the Internet. It maybe is at the border of the Internet but its a 
completely separated network were one entity has the control over all the 
physical devices within this network. That makes it easier to solve certain 
problems in a data center than in the Internet. But I don't see how it help 
to define the problem of CSO any better.

(d) Can you provide the pointers to all this material? But for me this 
examples look already so different that I wouldn't wanne try to find one 
generic solution for all of them. We just wrote an project proposal where the 
original idea was to do something about cross-layer optimization. But as we 
couldn't define the problem clearly, we thought it might make more sense to 
look at specific problems (one certain application in one network scenario) 
and find a solution for those problems in such a that it is generic enough to 
be used by other applications as well. (I have to say I'm working on 
transport protocols, so we were mainly focusing on solutions in the transport 
layer with application layer information/for one specific application type).

Some remarks about the charter:
- I still don't see which information you want to exchange. Whenever I asked 
this question, I got the same two examples like delay and bandwidth. But I 
don't believe that any application developer does understand what to do with 
these information. Btw. you can ask your socket interface for the congestion 
window and the RTT. These information are basically similar but completely 
useless for the application. You could maybe use these information aggregated 
over a certain time. This could give you an impression about the link state 
but still doesn't give you any guaranteed information for the future as the 
link state changes permanently.
It's a really complicated task to define an interface in such a that not only 
the right information can be exchanged but they are also represented in the 
right what. It's not only what but also how.

- From the Bar BoF I had the impression that the problem is more about which 
information should be exchanged but the charter is talking about a whole 
protocol. I would say to exchange information in one point between the layers 
you don't need a protocol but an inferface. I don't believe that you can find 
a generic interface here that will address all problems (and will be 
implemented by all kind of applications). I would assume that you have to 
change/extend the interface for every problem separately.
If you want a protocol to expose certain information within the same layer, 
this is completely different problem. This also goes in the direction of 
measuring and monitoring network state. There are tons of proposal for 
measuring all different kind of thing. And again I would say the solution 
differ a lot depending on what information you are aiming for. 

- One more general comment: Whenever you talk about CSO I have the feeling 
that you basically want to provide more information for the application. Why 
not providing more information for the lower layers about the traffic 
characteristics, requirements and maybe even user preferences of the 
application? Should the information actually go in both directions or will 
this increase the possibility of counterproductive decision?

Just my thoughts. I would like to start this discussion on the list, as I 
think this is an intresting topic but your proposal it not concrete enough 
for me to see the action points in the IETF. I'm an academic and do research 
on this topic up to now.

Mirja

On Tuesday 09 November 2010 21:28:20 Greg Bernstein wrote:
> Hi folks interested in cross stratum optimization (CSO) a few thoughts
> on some of the interesting points raised at the Bar BOF and to possibly
> stimulate further discussion:
>
> (a) Who benefits from CSO? The application provider or the carrier? It
> seems to be viable CSO should benefit both. The network operator
> (carrier, ISP, IT department, etc...) should benefit from more effective
> utilization of network resources (links, switches, routers, etc...) and
> gain more flexibility in dealing with fault conditions. The application
> provider benefits from being able to offer either higher quality
> services or better assurances on service quality. Essentially the
> network operator gets to influence the placement of load on the network
> while the application provider gets information that allows them to
> optimize their resources along with their customers experience.
>
> (b) Isn't the Internet "best effort"? How can you talk of providing a
> better "network experience" to applications?
> First CSO isn't strictly aimed at the "Internet" in general, but would
> start with various network domains (LAN, OSPF area, AS, etc...). Also
> "best effort" is a somewhat misleading term since it doesn't take into
> account overall statistical quality measures that are very important to
> user experiences. For example 2000 sessions sharing a link on a first
> come first serve basis are considered "best effort" whether the link is
> a T1 or an OC-192 but will generally experience greatly different
> "average" QoS ;-) . Depending on the network context and technology
> various service level guarantees may be explicit or implicit.
>
> (c) What's a "data center" and do we include "hosts"? Folks interested
> in CSO come from a number application and network areas.  The essence is
> that guidance from the network provider to the application provider
> concerning network state and capability provides benefits to both. In
> one of the drafts we tried a definition of a "data center" as something
> like "a location within the network where application resources maybe
> aggregated".
> I'd say a "host" (or my laptop) would qualify. Other ideas?
>
> (d) Examples? During some of the background work for the CSO drafts we
> looked at a number of examples that we published in the original draft.
> We've also looked at "pre-CSO" type mechanisms that are being used to
> try and optimize applications. These include "old school" and "new
> school" CDN approaches,  load balancing within and between data centers
> (local versus global),  various papers dealing with local and wide area
> VM migration, and High Performance Computing applications (radio
> astronomy being an interest of mine). Would it be useful to organize
> these in some way? We had some of these in the original CLO draft but
> the overall length was getting to long.  For our WSON work we set up web
> pages to keep track not just editors copies of our drafts (for all to
> work with) but supplemental material (some of which was later published
> in IEEE/OSA journals).
>
> Just some thoughts from a jet lagged Californian ;-)
>
> Greg B.

---

From: "Kathy McEwen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:12:32 -0600

Interesting thoughts, I have some additional comments inserted below...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mirja
Kühlewind
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 8:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [cso] Some thoughts from the CSO Bar BOF...

Hi,

I participated in both Bar BoFs and I believe that in the area of
Cross-Layer Optimization is still a lot of space to do thing better but I
don't believe in a generic approach. 

benefit. 

KCM::  First of all, this is possible, we have built a system that is taking
both a global cross network view and implemented to be distributed across
networks and nodes.  The protocols (Layers 2, 3/4, and 7) we have defined do
not attempt to "maximize" to the individual nodes benefit, rather to enable
a cross-network cooperation in negotiating resources and managing delivery
end-to-end.  I am also aware of at least 2 or 3 other disruptive start up
competitors that are looking at doing something uncomfortably similar, as
well as numerous Tier 1 network equipment providers exploring ways to
deliver exactly this functionality.

I would say even if you provide the needed information you can't be sure
that automatically everybody will benefit. Moreover, you would have to give
for every player the right incentives to actually make a decision that will
optimize the whole system and not only the benefit of one single player.

KCM::  Agreed, which is why Layer 7 protocols are needed, to enable the
network to share in intelligence about the "application" or "data" being
communicated or delivered.  In the case of any professional media (music,
video, news, entertainment, pictures, ...) there are strict "digital rights"
management that must be respected.   There is also the need for
monetization, and the same content that is protected, generally has an owner
that expects to be paid or has been paid for such content to be
delivered/provided.    Today there are "caches" created by Content Delivery
Network (CDN) companies, such as Akamai, Level 3, Limelight, ..., that are
fully aware of these "digital rights", and in many cases may participate in
the subscription/authentication portion of the exchange as they take over
the roles of caching entire websites.  More and more, network providers and
content providers are moving in a direction of pushing content closer and
closer to the edges of networks.  In the case of the internet, this
traditionally has landed at broadband access providers peering points, and
is not really anywhere near the actual consumer edge.  Many network
providers are now looking at how to extend the CDN inside these broadband
ISP network borders, take a look at announcements from Verizon, Telefonica,
AT&T, DT, BT, etc..  CDN’s interoperate with each other, acting as their own
overlay “islands” in the networks, clearly benefiting them as one single
player.  Today’s CDN and IP/MPLS protocols do not cooperate to extend
services in a managed way across multiple network domains.    So, yes some
monetization is needed for these providers to agree to cooperate as well,
again this is something very well done in Layer 7, with subscription,
billing, and admission control methods, without impacting the packet flows
at layer 1/2-3.   By standardizing and agreeing on some protocols here
perhaps this can enable many, many players, …multiple network providers,
media providers and CDN providers, as well  as application providers and
consumers to benefit.

Moreover, if you have several entities/different point in different layers
which make decisions based on the same information, you have to be very
careful that those decisions will not be counterproductive. E.g. an
application changes the coding to lower bitrate and the network reserves
more capacity at the same time.

KCM::  Agreed, which is the motivation to have clear APIs and standards to
enable communication of key information between layers 2/3, 7 and into the
application itself.  If a connection is created source to destination,
enabling a massive transfer of data at a very high bit rate, then the
application decides to “adapt” the codec rate, and doesn’t inform the
network, then the only way for the network to “know” the rate has changed is
to monitor the flows.  Take video for example, one can do some level of deep
packet inspection to monitor the video control protocols (RTSP, RTMP,
RTMP-WM, etc…) for adaptive rate change messages coming up from the clients
(as this is how they all work today).  But this is costly relative to a
server actually sending a message in real time to notify the network that a
rate change is going to take place just before they start sending the
modified rate.  This application message can then be shared with the lower
layer 2/3 sub network systems to notify them to modify the capacity as well.
One only needs to take a look at the example posted to NANOG recently by BBC
of what is yet to come on the networks…

(Hot topic: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's
Actions) extracted from post:

Whatever marketing feel like, there is no absolute High Definition, it's
really Higher Definition where the reference is undefined.

When access speeds get to 1Gbit/s they'll no doubt be unhappy that we may
stream something like this -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2010/10/super-hi-vision-tr
ials

It's basically impossible to show the stability of such a complex system.
It's already hard to make any stability investigations about multi-protocol
networks.

KCM::  Disagree, today’s SS7 voice networks deliver voice globally, across
many network domain owners, fixed and wireless, out to endpoints that are
both digital and analog, across fiber (PON), coax/cable (DOCSYS, DS3),
copper (DSL, ADSL, VDSL, T1/EI, …) and the air (GSM, CDMA, AMPS, UMTS, WiFi,
WiMAX, … soon LTE), satellite links, and in many different container
formats.  Codecs are managed end to end, and negotiated in the mobile domain
to allow for end to end transcoding free connections, as well as dynamically
beginning a transcoding as needed if a user makes a handover to a different
system.  The network nodes are all running Layer 7 protocols to achieve the
end to end cooperation, cut billing records (enabling monetization), verify
subscription/roaming rights (enabling monetization between providers),
negotiate admission with “reservation” that is totally aware of
codec/bandwidth/L1/L2/L3 (including a large variety of TDM, IP, ATM and MPLS
protocols) and working in tight cooperation with those layers to achieve the
end to end globally connected Quality with stability that is in most cases
regulated to provide availability to 5 9’s (99.999% of the time the system
is up and stably running = 5.26 minutes per year).  Contrast this with your
average internet system availability, then perhaps you may be right. 

(b) I still don't get your point here. As you say 'best effort' means that
you always try to get the maximum but you never know what the maximum
is/what you get. This doesn't go in-line for me with any kind of services
guarantees. If you want guarantees you can use e.g. resource reservation.
But than you know exactly what you get and you don't need any further
cross-layer state information.

KCM::   Networks, even IP/MPLS are not just “best effort” today, they have
DiffServ (TOS), ATM PVC, MPLS-TE/RSVP, etc.  The data network providers
offer private network connections with everything from very strict service
level agreements (SLA) to very loose or none.  Unfortunately, today these
tight SLA agreements cannot easily be extended to applications demanding the
connections in real time.  Is there any network provider that is offering
on-demand 2-3 Mbps connections source to destination within milliseconds, or
even seconds?  Or even 1 Gbps connections?  NTT, in the first CSO Bar BoF in
Europe did show that they have demonstrated it can be done with optical
layer components given a request from applications.   I wonder if they used
this to enable the BBC demo referenced above from London to Tokyo??
Wouldn’t this be a cool thing to enable a very high definition broadcast of
a real time event at the London Summer 2012 Olympics across the net?
Coordinated, in cooperation with multiple network and media providers across
UK, Canada, USA, Japan and the rest of the world.  Conversely today,
consumers and media providers alike depend on satellites, dedicated access
links from their edit/origination points to distribution points then out to
closed network Satellite, Broadcast, and Cable/IPTV.  Consumers may not
understand SLA and “services guarantees” but they do understand quality,
they do pay for it, and they do change providers when they are dissatisfied
with the quality of the service they are experiencing.  Application and
media providers understand SLA very well, and they often go to great lengths
to ensure their consumers get the very best experience they can from their
web sites.  Unfortunately, for consumers and these providers, today they
cannot extend that guarantee through the ISP down to the consumer.      

(c) You say: '... definition of a "data center" as something like "a
location within the network where application resources maybe aggregated".
What? 

KCM::  If you ignore the data center, you will be ignoring the requirements
of the end-to-end solution.  The data center is the source on the web, and
the source can come from your PC (if you have your own web server on one), a
server at an enterprise, a server in a big data center, a CDN cache server,
or a network cache server.   The location where the application resides
could be on a mobile device, connecting to a server in the mobile network or
outside the mobile network.  Understanding where the source and destination
points are, what they are capable of, and what protocols they are capable of
communicating or not, and how those applications and devices will interwork
with the network.  Our solution (products and protocols), have incorporated
these requirements into a network solution that is capable of adapting to
the dynamic changing needs of the devices, access and the applications.
Without an understanding of these it would be very difficult to define what
the Layer 7 protocols need (subscription, billing, service enablement) and
what they need to interwork with the Layer 2/3 protocols for an end-to-end
service delivery.   

(d) Can you provide the pointers to all this material? But for me this
examples look already so different that I wouldn't wanne try to find one
generic solution for all of them. We just wrote an project proposal where
the original idea was to do something about cross-layer optimization. But as
we couldn't define the problem clearly, we thought it might make more sense
to look at specific problems (one certain application in one network
scenario) and find a solution for those problems in such a that it is
generic enough to be used by other applications as well. (I have to say I'm
working on transport protocols, so we were mainly focusing on solutions in
the transport layer with application layer information/for one specific
application type).

KCM::  We have focused first on a specific application too, that being video
delivery from web sites to consumers. 

- I still don't see which information you want to exchange. Whenever I asked
this question, I got the same two examples like delay and bandwidth. But I
don't believe that any application developer does understand what to do with
these information. Btw. you can ask your socket interface for the congestion
window and the RTT. These information are basically similar but completely
useless for the application. You could maybe use these information
aggregated over a certain time. This could give you an impression about the
link state but still doesn't give you any guaranteed information for the
future as the link state changes permanently.

It's a really complicated task to define an interface in such a that not
only the right information can be exchanged but they are also represented in
the right what. It's not only what but also how.

- From the Bar BoF I had the impression that the problem is more about which
information should be exchanged but the charter is talking about a whole
protocol. I would say to exchange information in one point between the
layers you don't need a protocol but an inferface. I don't believe that you
can find a generic interface here that will address all problems (and will
be implemented by all kind of applications). I would assume that you have to
change/extend the interface for every problem separately.

KCM::  We would be happy to interwork with other network equipment to share
some of our protocols and application information that could be shared
across the layers, to enable the lower layers to work cooperatively with the
applications.  We would very much like to see some movement within IETF,
particularly around the layers in MPLS and optical that they do own the
protocols for.  We have some very innovative ways of handling video packets,
including for multicast/broadcast, that could easily be extending to work
cooperatively with other network platforms.  On the Layer 7, application
side, we have used much of the protocols defined in 3GPP, as our solution is
intended for both the fixed and mobile markets, and 3GPP has already worked
out all the mobility/roaming subscription/billing tricks in their protocols.
We plan to take what we have modified in the 3GPP protocols back to them to
see if they will extend their standards to incorporate these modifications
too.    

Mirja

> on some of the interesting points raised at the Bar BOF and to 

> possibly stimulate further discussion:

> (carrier, ISP, IT department, etc...) should benefit from more 

> effective utilization of network resources (links, switches, routers, 

> etc...) and gain more flexibility in dealing with fault conditions. 

> The application provider benefits from being able to offer either 

> higher quality services or better assurances on service quality. 

> Essentially the network operator gets to influence the placement of 

> load on the network while the application provider gets information 

> that allows them to optimize their resources along with their customers
experience.

> account overall statistical quality measures that are very important 

> to user experiences. For example 2000 sessions sharing a link on a 

> first come first serve basis are considered "best effort" whether the 

> link is a T1 or an OC-192 but will generally experience greatly 

> different "average" QoS ;-) . Depending on the network context and 

> technology various service level guarantees may be explicit or implicit.

> in CSO come from a number application and network areas.  The essence 

> is that guidance from the network provider to the application provider 

> one of the drafts we tried a definition of a "data center" as 

> something like "a location within the network where application 

> resources maybe aggregated".

> school" CDN approaches,  load balancing within and between data 

> centers (local versus global),  various papers dealing with local and 

> wide area VM migration, and High Performance Computing applications 

> (radio astronomy being an interest of mine). Would it be useful to 

> organize these in some way? We had some of these in the original CLO 

> draft but the overall length was getting to long.  For our WSON work 

> we set up web pages to keep track not just editors copies of our 

> drafts (for all to work with) but supplemental material (some of which 

> was later published in IEEE/OSA journals).

> Greg B.

_______________________________________________

cso mailing list

 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cso>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cso

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:46:04 -0800

Hi Mirja, lots of good questions.  See comments below. Note when some of 
us were (and still are) working on WSON efforts in the CCAMP working 
group we had very good interactions with researchers at Universities and 
other institutes.

Best Regards

Greg B.

> Optimization is still a lot of space to do thing better but I don't believe
--> Our job in trying to develop standards is to find the "common 
ground" between various approaches not to constrain solutions. For 
example in the (Path computation entity) PCE working group various 
mechanisms were put in place to support problems of a particular type 
(e.g. concurrent optimization of paths), however no algorithms are 
specified as part of that effort. In GMPLS routing various types of 
useful information for path computation can be distributed, e.g., a 
shared risk link group (SRLG) indicator for a link, however a network 
using GMPLS may or may not distribute SRLG information via routing.
> will optimize the whole system and not only the benefit of one single player.
--> Hmm, I know that Kathy M. responded to this point and her response 
made sense to me, but this brings up an interesting issue concerning the 
entities (or actors) involved.  I see three main sets of actors: (a) the 
application service provider (possibly distributed in locations around a 
"network"), (b) the "network" (in its most complicated an interconnected 
set of independently managed domains, in its simplest a LAN under a 
single administration), (c) users of the application service (lots of 
them in different places around the network).
Hence I guess I primarily see interactions between the application 
service provider and the "network" on behalf of the application 
service's users rather than a competition between all three to maximize 
some type of individual benefit.
> about multi-protocol networks.
--> Lots of good points in here and this hits the notion of what 
"timescales" are we talking about optimizing over. Efficiently planning 
and provisioning a multi-layer network is a non-trivial task.  It 
usually starts with some type of information on traffic demand (traffic 
matrix historical information and estimates). This is done for rather 
long timescales, while various forms of congestion control work on 
shorter time scales.  I would say that we are trying to do something in 
between, kind of like Connection Admission Control, but taking into 
account application service flexibility too.
> exactly what you get and you don't need any further cross-layer state
--> Kathy M. addressed this...
> to define the problem of CSO any better.
--> Hmm, I thought in one of our documents or discussions we discussed 
that we are interested in: (a) user to data center networking, (b) 
intra-data center networking (the data center applications making good 
use of the data centers local network), and (c) inter-data center 
networking.  In all cases we are interested in application quality and 
networking resources.  See the papers by A. Greenberg's group on data 
center networks (things are changing...).
> layer with application layer information/for one specific application type).
--> See end of e-mail for references...
> these information.
-->  This is a bit of an application "traffic engineering" problem hence 
a "general" application developer probably wouldn't know what to do with 
it today, but they are getting more sophisticated and have been dealing 
with server performance issues for quite some time so I don't see this 
as preventing CSO being used.
> Btw. you can ask your socket interface for the congestion
--> Current CDNs do a lot of these types of measurements but in a bit 
more sophisticated way to estimate bandwidth and delay.
> right what. It's not only what but also how.
--> Folks at the IETF and other standards bodies are always challenged 
with this issue, can't escape it.
> you don't need a protocol but an inferface.
--> Its a bit early to say.  At the IETF we try to reuse as much as 
possible.  First step is always getting a good handle on the problem 
space, from that everything seems to flow...
> I don't believe that you can find
> implemented by all kind of applications).
--> Our goal isn't to address all problems or to enable some type of 
"global optimization" to occur. Our goal is to enable better (improved) 
use of network and application resources through the sharing of a 
limited amount of information between these two entities.  For example 
reference [33] shows how an application overlay network and server 
selection can be performed based on relatively limited information and 
how this is an improvement over no information sharing.
>   I would assume that you have to
-->  Good question. We've had some discussions about where a CSO entity 
would be located (application layer or network layer) and hence who 
should be sharing what kind of information. It currently seems that 
application services and their internal structure are changing at a 
rapid pace and hence may be hard to come up with a generic abstract 
model. While for those of us in the networking field it seems like we've 
been dealing with links, nodes, bandwidth, delay, jitter models for 
quite some time ;-)
> for me to see the action points in the IETF. I'm an academic and do research
--> Remember that as a standards effort we are very constrained into 
what aspects of this area we would actually take on.  From a research & 
development point of view things are wide open.
>> snip
--> references

[1]J. van der Ham, F. Dijkstra, P. Grosso, R. van der Pol, A. Toonk, and 
C. de Laat, "A distributed topology information system for optical 
networks based on the semantic web," /Optical Switching and 
Networking/,vol. 5, Jun. 2008, pp. 85-93.

[2]E. Walker, "Creating private network overlays for high performance 
scientific computing," /Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/USENIX 2007 
International Conference on Middleware/,Newport Beach, California: 
Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 2007, pp. 204-222.

[3]Y. Birk and V. Zdornov, "Improving communication-phase completion 
times in HPC clusters through congestion mitigation," /Proceedings of 
SYSTOR 2009: The Israeli Experimental Systems Conference/,Haifa, Israel: 
ACM, 2009, pp. 1-11.

[4]Y. Deng and F. Wang, "A heterogeneous storage grid enabled by grid 
service," /SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev./,vol. 41, 2007, pp. 7-13.

[5]P. Andrews, P. Kovatch, and C. Jordan, "Massive High-Performance 
Global File Systems for Grid computing," /Proceedings of the 2005 
ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing/, IEEE Computer Society, 2005, p. 53.

[6]A. Caminero, O. Rana, B. Caminero, and C. Carrión, "An autonomic 
network-aware scheduling architecture for grid computing," /Proceedings 
of the 5th international workshop on Middleware for grid computing: held 
at the ACM/IFIP/USENIX 8th International Middleware Conference/,Newport 
Beach, California: ACM, 2007, pp. 1-6.

[7]F.D. Berman, R. Wolski, S. Figueira, J. Schopf, and G. Shao, 
"Application-level scheduling on distributed heterogeneous networks," 
/Proceedings of the 1996 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing 
(CDROM)/,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States: IEEE Computer Society, 
1996, p. 39.

[8]Young Choon Lee and A. Zomaya, "Data Sharing Pattern Aware Scheduling 
on Grids," /2006 International Conference on Parallel Processing 
(ICPP'06)/,Columbus, OH, USA: , pp. 365-372.

[9]C.A. Lee, J. Stepanek, R. Wolski, C. Kesselman, and I. Foster, "A 
network performance tool for grid environments," /Proceedings of the 
1999 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing (CDROM)/,Portland, Oregon, 
United States: ACM, 1999, p. 4.

*[10]E. Kissel, M. Swany, and A. Brown, "Improving GridFTP performance 
using the Phoebus session layer," /Proceedings of the Conference on High 
Performance Computing Networking, Storage and Analysis/,Portland, 
Oregon: ACM, 2009, pp. 1-10.

[11]Y. Yan and B. Chapman, "Scientific workflow scheduling in 
computational gridsPlanning, reservation, and data/network-awareness," 
/Proceedings of the 8th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid 
Computing/, IEEE Computer Society, 2007, pp. 18-25.

*[12]S. Venugopal, R. Buyya, and K. Ramamohanarao, "A taxonomy of Data 
Grids for distributed data sharing, management, and processing," /ACM 
Comput. Surv./,vol. 38, 2006, p. 3.

*[13]Y. Lin, B. Kemme, M. Patino-Martinez, and R. Jimenez-Peris, 
"Applying database replication to multi-player online games," 
/Proceedings of 5th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support 
for games/,Singapore: ACM, 2006, p. 15.

*[14]K.K. Ramakrishnan, P. Shenoy, and J.V.D. Merwe, "Live data center 
migration across WANs: a robust cooperative context aware approach," 
/Proceedings of the 2007 SIGCOMM workshop on Internet network 
management/,Kyoto, Japan: ACM, 2007, pp. 262-267.

*[15]Z. Duan, Z. Zhang, and Y.T. Hou, "Service overlay networks: SLAs, 
QoS, and bandwidth provisioning," /IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw./,vol. 11, 2003, 
pp. 870-883.

[16]B.S. Davie and J. Medved, "A programmable overlay router for service 
provider innovation," /Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on 
Programmable routers for extensible services of tomorrow/,Barcelona, 
Spain: ACM, 2009, pp. 1-6.

*[17]N. Carlsson and D.L. Eager, "Server selection in large-scale 
video-on-demand systems," /ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. 
Appl./,vol. 6, 2010, pp. 1-26.

*[18]Zongming Fei, M. Ammar, and E. Zegura, "Multicast server selection: 
problems, complexity, and solutions," /Selected Areas in Communications, 
IEEE Journal on/,vol. 20, 2002, pp. 1399-1413.

*[19]J. Almeida, D. Eager, M. Vernon, and S. Wright, "Minimizing 
Delivery Cost in Scalable Streaming Content Distribution Systems," /IEEE 
Transactions on Multimedia/,vol. 6, 2004, pp. 356-365.

*[20]A. Bar-Noy and R.E. Ladner, "Competitive on-line stream merging 
algorithms for media-on-demand," /Proceedings of the twelfth annual 
ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms/,Washington, D.C., United 
States: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2001, pp. 364-373.

[21]K.A. Hua and S. Sheu, "Skyscraper broadcasting: a new broadcasting 
scheme for metropolitan video-on-demand systems," /Proceedings of the 
ACM SIGCOMM '97 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, 
and protocols for computer communication/,Cannes, France: ACM, 1997, pp. 
89-100.

[22]D. Eager, M. Vernon, and J. Zahorjan, "Minimizing bandwidth 
requirements for on-demand data delivery," /Knowledge and Data 
Engineering, IEEE Transactions on/,vol. 13, 2001, pp. 742-757.

[23]M. Guo, M.H. Ammar, and E.F. Zegura, "Selecting among replicated 
batching video-on-demand servers," /Proceedings of the 12th 
international workshop on Network and operating systems support for 
digital audio and video/,Miami, Florida, USA: ACM, 2002, pp. 155-163.

[24]E.W. Zegura, M.H. Ammar, Z. Fei, and S. Bhattacharjee, 
"Application-layer anycasting: a server selection architecture and use 
in a replicated Web service," /IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw./,vol. 8, 2000, pp. 
455-466.

[25]F. Thouin and M. Coates, "Equipment allocation in video-on-demand 
network deployments," /ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl./,vol. 
5, 2008, pp. 1-22.

*[26]Y.R. Chen, R. Jana, D. Stern, B. Wei, M. Yang, and H. Sun, 
"Zebroid: using IPTV data to support peer-assisted VoD content 
delivery," /Proceedings of the 18th international workshop on Network 
and operating systems support for digital audio and video/,Williamsburg, 
VA, USA: ACM, 2009, pp. 115-120.

[27]J.M. Dyaberi, K. Kannan, and V.S. Pai, "Storage optimization for a 
peer-to-peer video-on-demand network," /Proceedings of the first annual 
ACM SIGMM conference on Multimedia systems/,Phoenix, Arizona, USA: ACM, 
2010, pp. 59-70.

[28]A.A. Mahimkar, Z. Ge, A. Shaikh, J. Wang, J. Yates, Y. Zhang, and Q. 
Zhao, "Towards automated performance diagnosis in a large IPTV network," 
/Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2009 conference on Data 
communication/,Barcelona, Spain: ACM, 2009, pp. 231-242.

*[29]S. Das and J. Kangasharju, "Evaluation of network impact of content 
distribution mechanisms," /Proceedings of the 1st international 
conference on Scalable information systems/,Hong Kong: ACM, 2006, p. 35.

[30]B. Krishnamurthy, C. Wills, and Y. Zhang, "On the use and 
performance of content distribution networks," /Proceedings of the 1st 
ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Measurement/,San Francisco, California, 
USA: ACM, 2001, pp. 169-182.

*[31]P. Krishnan, D. Raz, and Y. Shavitt, "The cache location problem," 
/Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on/,vol. 8, 2000, pp. 568-582.

[32]E. Cronin, S. Jamin, Cheng Jin, A. Kurc, D. Raz, and Y. Shavitt, 
"Constrained mirror placement on the Internet," /Selected Areas in 
Communications, IEEE Journal on/,vol. 20, 2002, pp. 1369-1382.

**[33]S. Ratnasamy, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker, 
"Topologically-aware overlay construction and server selection," 
/INFOCOM 2002. Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer 
and Communications Societies. Proceedings. IEEE/, 2002, pp. 1190-1199 vol.3.

[34]S. Gargolinski, C.S. Pierre, and M. Claypool, "Game server selection 
for multiple players," /Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on 
Network and system support for games/,Hawthorne, NY: ACM, 2005, pp. 1-6.

[35]P. Quax, J. Dierckx, B. Cornelissen, G. Vansichem, and W. Lamotte, 
"Dynamic server allocation in a real-life deployable communications 
architecture for networked games," /Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM 
Workshop on Network and System Support for Games/,Worcester, 
Massachusetts: ACM, 2008, pp. 66-71.

[36]J. Jardine and D. Zappala, "A hybrid architecture for massively 
multiplayer online games," /Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Workshop 
on Network and System Support for Games/,Worcester, Massachusetts: ACM, 
2008, pp. 60-65.

[37]S.D. Webb, S. Soh, and W. Lau, "Enhanced mirrored servers for 
network games," /Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network 
and system support for games/,Melbourne, Australia: ACM, 2007, pp. 117-122.

[38]P.B. Beskow, K. Vik, P. Halvorsen, and C. Griwodz, "Latency 
reduction by dynamic core selection and partial migration of game 
state," /Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Network and 
System Support for Games/,Worcester, Massachusetts: ACM, 2008, pp. 79-84.

[39]K. Vik, C. Griwodz, and P. Halvorsen, "Applicability of group 
communication for increased scalability in MMOGs," /Proceedings of 5th 
ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games/,Singapore: 
ACM, 2006, p. 2.

*[40]C. Chambers and W. Feng, "Patch scheduling for on-line games," 
/Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support 
for games/,Hawthorne, NY: ACM, 2005, pp. 1-6.

[41]T. Jehaes, D.D. Vleeschauwer, T. Coppens, B.V. Doorselaer, E. 
Deckers, W. Naudts, K. Spruyt, and R. Smets, "Access network delay in 
networked games," /Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Network and system 
support for games/,Redwood City, California: ACM, 2003, pp. 63-71.

[42]F. Lu, S. Parkin, and G. Morgan, "Load balancing for massively 
multiplayer online games," /Proceedings of 5th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on 
Network and system support for games/,Singapore: ACM, 2006, p. 1.

[43]J. Färber, "Network game traffic modelling," /Proceedings of the 1st 
workshop on Network and system support for games/,Braunschweig, Germany: 
ACM, 2002, pp. 53-57.

[44]M. Suznjevic, M. Matijasevic, and O. Dobrijevic, "Action specific 
Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games traffic analysis: case 
study of World of Warcraft," /Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM 
Workshop on Network and System Support for Games/,Worcester, 
Massachusetts: ACM, 2008, pp. 106-107.

[45]P. Tarng, K. Chen, and P. Huang, "An analysis of WoW players' game 
hours," /Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Network and 
System Support for Games/,Worcester, Massachusetts: ACM, 2008, pp. 47-52.

Virtualization Related:

[1]C. Clark et al., "Live migration of virtual machines," in 
/Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Symposium on Networked Systems 
Design \& Implementation - Volume 2/, pp. 273-286, 2005.

[2]R. Bradford, E. Kotsovinos, A. Feldmann, and H. Schiöberg, "Live 
wide-area migration of virtual machines including local persistent 
state," in /Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Virtual 
execution environments/, pp. 169-179, 2007.

[3]E. Harney, S. Goasguen, J. Martin, M. Murphy, and M. Westall, "The 
efficacy of live virtual machine migrations over the internet," in 
/Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Virtualization 
technology in distributed computing/, pp. 1-7, 2007.

[4]A. Kadav and M. M. Swift, "Live migration of direct-access devices," 
/SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev./, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 95-104, 2009.

[5]A. Stage and T. Setzer, "Network-aware migration control and 
scheduling of differentiated virtual machine workloads," in /Proceedings 
of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering Challenges of Cloud 
Computing/, pp. 9-14, 2009.

[6]H. Liu, H. Jin, X. Liao, L. Hu, and C. Yu, "Live migration of virtual 
machine based on full system trace and replay," in /Proceedings of the 
18th ACM international symposium on High performance distributed 
computing/, pp. 101-110, 2009.

[7]P. Barham et al., "Xen and the art of virtualization," in 
/Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems 
principles/, pp. 164-177, 2003.

[8]D. Nurmi et al., "The Eucalyptus Open-Source Cloud-Computing System," 
in /Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2009. CCGRID '09. 9th IEEE/ACM 
International Symposium on/, pp. 124-131, 2009.

[9]A. Greenberg, P. Lahiri, D. A. Maltz, P. Patel, and S. Sengupta, 
"Towards a next generation data center architecture: scalability and 
commoditization," in /Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Programmable 
routers for extensible services of tomorrow/, pp. 57-62, 2008.

[10]T. Benson, A. Anand, A. Akella, and M. Zhang, "Understanding data 
center traffic characteristics," /SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev./, vol. 
40, no. 1, pp. 92-99, 2010.

[11]N. Feamster, J. Borkenhagen, and J. Rexford, "Guidelines for 
interdomain traffic engineering," /SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev./, vol. 
33, no. 5, pp. 19-30, 2003.

[12]P. Costa, T. Zahn, A. Rowstron, G. O'Shea, and S. Schubert, "Why 
should we integrate services, servers, and networking in a data 
center?," in /Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Research on 
enterprise networking/, pp. 111-118, 2009.

[13]A. Greenberg et al., "VL2: a scalable and flexible data center 
network," in /Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2009 conference on Data 
communication/, pp. 51-62, 2009.

[14]A. Greenberg, J. Hamilton, D. A. Maltz, and P. Patel, "The cost of a 
cloud: research problems in data center networks," /SIGCOMM Comput. 
Commun. Rev./, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 68-73, 2009.

> [email-masked]

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:24:40 -0600

Hi Mirja,

In your question on scoping, please make sure to understand that we have
split the CSO work into two separate items per Ron Bonica's suggestion. He
thinks the original CSO scope was too broad and suggested the separation of
the work into two distinctive work although related:

(i) Network Aware Application Resource Assignment and Mobility (this would
belong to the application area)

(ii) Network Stratum Query (this belongs to the OPS area) 

The context of both works mentioned above is the Data Centers. I think this
is an effort to narrow down the scope/context to Data Center Networks (DCN)
from which a plethora of services originates as Greg and Kathy indicated in
their emails respectively. 

In work (i) we have narrowed down the issues pertaining global load
balancing. Please read Ning's draft on the constraints we are considering to
make load balancing "global" in the DCN. 

In work (ii), we try to define application/service profile that captures the
requirement of application. This has to be "general" enough to capture all
the applications. As to what information should be conveyed to network from
application is the main work of the potential WG. We simply illustrated in
the NQ Query draft what can be passed down to network from application. 

Please see in-line for my comment to some of your specific questions.
Thanks.

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----

Hi,

Cross-Layer 

sure that automatically everybody will benefit. Moreover, you would have to 
give for every player the right incentives to actually make a decision that 
will optimize the whole system and not only the benefit of one single
player.
Moreover, if you have several entities/different point in different layers 
which make decisions based on the same information, you have to be very 
careful that those decisions will not be counterproductive. E.g. an 
application changes the coding to lower bitrate and the network reserves
more 
capacity at the same time. It's basically impossible to show the stability
of 
such a complex system. It's already hard to make any stability
investigations 
about multi-protocol networks.

YOUNG>> We neither talk about lowering bitrate in the application nor
resource reservation in the charter at this point. All the charter is
talking about is a simple query capability. We scoped down quite a bit from
the first Bar BOF held in Maastricht. 

YOUNG>> However, what you are saying here regarding the stability concern
between application and network is a valid point in the reservation system. 

(b) I still don't get your point here. As you say 'best effort' means that
you 
always try to get the maximum but you never know what the maximum is/what
you 
get. This doesn't go in-line for me with any kind of services guarantees. If

YOUNG>> I think Greg answered well on this point already. 

location 

the 
and find a solution for those problems in such a that it is generic enough
to 
transport protocols, so we were mainly focusing on solutions in the
transport 

YOUNG>> Greg did a great job for this. 

aggregated 
only 

YOUNG>> Regarding the what part ("right" information), this is a part of the
work to be defined once the WG has started. "How" part is implementation.
IETF does not deal with algorithm or methodology. 

layers 
you don't need a protocol but an inferface. I don't believe that you can
find 

YOUNG>> This point is not actually correct. The application provides to the
network about its service/application profiles including location and the
connectivity (such as PP, P-MP, Anycast, etc.) and other QoS profile
associated with application including user-preference. And the network
provides to the application the abstract/summary of the network resources. 

on this topic up to now.

Mirja