Presentations & agenda

[Henning Schulzrinne]

We have roughly 3 hours for the opt-in WG meeting in Minneapolis.  
After discussions with Aaron, we will be spending a good chunk of our  
time trying to scope the problem. One way to divide the topic into  
more manageable chunks is to think of a division into three problems:

(1) "ISP": If GENI acts like an ISP, how do users gain access to  
that, both on traditional Ethernet-style (campus) networks and on  
wireless networks (802.11 and cellular)? What incentives are there?

(2) "Generalized P2P": If end user resources become part of the  
experimental infrastructure, how can users restrict the use of such  
resources and how can experimenters access those resources?

(3) Network services: How do users get access to network services?  
What are the motivations and possible incentive/payment mechanisms?

All three problems have both a technical component, such as protocols  
and issues of trust, an economic component (who pays and in what  
currency) and a policy/legal component, such as the usual issues that  
worry institutional review boards (IRBs), including privacy and  
informed consent.

To help structure the discussion, I'd like to invite members of the  
WG to present brief talks on WG-related topics, not necessarily  
following the structure above. Please let me know as soon as possible  
what you would want to talk about, so that I can put together an agenda.

Henning

_______________________________________________
opt-in-wg mailing list
opt-in-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg

[Matt Mathis]

There is another option to consider.  If some portion of the GENI
infrastructure is placed at the RONs (Regional Optical Networks, aka GigaPoPs)
or at campus borders, it might be possible to "opt in" at very large
granularities by steering some portion of campus traffic through GENI. The key
here is to provide fast "restoration", e.g the capability to quickly reroute
traffic back on to production infrastructure. It also requires some fairly
strong incentive to encourage the users to opt in as a community.

There is good low hanging fruit - these days most campuses segregate dormitory
traffic from general university traffic, and subject traffic between the dorms
and external sites to separate bandwidth caps which are often much smaller
than the presented load.  They do this to control the cost of providing
Internet service to the students, who have a huge capacity to share digital
content.  The students would probably happily accept increased Internet
capacity in exchange for a slight reduction in robustness.  The university
might save money by using a metered service for the students.  For the cost of
providing transit service, GENI would have at its disposal a huge and diverse
source of authentic traffic.

The tricky parts are getting the "rerouting" to work well enough and to
accurately balance the desirability of the GENI service relative to the
parallel production service, such that the users continue to prefer to opt in
as a block, but they do not become so addicted that turning off GENI causes
problems.  "Prime time down time" should probably be an ongoing operational
requirement.

Just a thought.

Thanks,
--MM--
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis      http://www.psc.edu/~mathis
Work:412.268.3319    Home/Cell:412.654.7529
-------------------------------------------
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know
"The Truth" and use force to apply it to others.

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> We have roughly 3 hours for the opt-in WG meeting in Minneapolis.
> After discussions with Aaron, we will be spending a good chunk of our
> time trying to scope the problem. One way to divide the topic into
> more manageable chunks is to think of a division into three problems:
>
> (1) "ISP": If GENI acts like an ISP, how do users gain access to
> that, both on traditional Ethernet-style (campus) networks and on
> wireless networks (802.11 and cellular)? What incentives are there?
>
> (2) "Generalized P2P": If end user resources become part of the
> experimental infrastructure, how can users restrict the use of such
> resources and how can experimenters access those resources?
>
> (3) Network services: How do users get access to network services?
> What are the motivations and possible incentive/payment mechanisms?
>
> All three problems have both a technical component, such as protocols
> and issues of trust, an economic component (who pays and in what
> currency) and a policy/legal component, such as the usual issues that
> worry institutional review boards (IRBs), including privacy and
> informed consent.
>
> To help structure the discussion, I'd like to invite members of the
> WG to present brief talks on WG-related topics, not necessarily
> following the structure above. Please let me know as soon as possible
> what you would want to talk about, so that I can put together an agenda.
>
> Henning
>
> _______________________________________________
> opt-in-wg mailing list
> opt-in-wg@...
> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg
>

_______________________________________________
opt-in-wg mailing list
opt-in-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg

[Henning Schulzrinne]

I think you highlight an important distinction, namely between  
"individual" and "group" opt-in.

This is fairly similar to how Internet2 is handled on many campuses  
today; all traffic between US I2 sites traverses Internet2. GENI  
would be Internet3 in that model... I'm familiar with the Columbia  
setup, where we have several 'commercial' Internet egress pipes plus  
our pipe to the Gigapop. We limit per-user commodity Internet traffic  
volume, but not Internet2 traffic. Thus, at least in our case, this  
wouldn't be all that attractive to students.

Henning

On Oct 4, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:

> There is another option to consider.  If some portion of the GENI
> infrastructure is placed at the RONs (Regional Optical Networks,  
> aka GigaPoPs)
> or at campus borders, it might be possible to "opt in" at very large
> granularities by steering some portion of campus traffic through  
> GENI. The key
> here is to provide fast "restoration", e.g the capability to  
> quickly reroute
> traffic back on to production infrastructure. It also requires some  
> fairly
> strong incentive to encourage the users to opt in as a community.
>
> There is good low hanging fruit - these days most campuses  
> segregate dormitory
> traffic from general university traffic, and subject traffic  
> between the dorms
> and external sites to separate bandwidth caps which are often much  
> smaller
> than the presented load.  They do this to control the cost of  
> providing
> Internet service to the students, who have a huge capacity to share  
> digital
> content.  The students would probably happily accept increased  
> Internet
> capacity in exchange for a slight reduction in robustness.  The  
> university
> might save money by using a metered service for the students.  For  
> the cost of
> providing transit service, GENI would have at its disposal a huge  
> and diverse
> source of authentic traffic.
>
> The tricky parts are getting the "rerouting" to work well enough  
> and to
> accurately balance the desirability of the GENI service relative to  
> the
> parallel production service, such that the users continue to prefer  
> to opt in
> as a block, but they do not become so addicted that turning off  
> GENI causes
> problems.  "Prime time down time" should probably be an ongoing  
> operational
> requirement.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> -------------------------------------------
> Matt Mathis      http://www.psc.edu/~mathis
> Work:412.268.3319    Home/Cell:412.654.7529
> -------------------------------------------
> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know
> "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others.
>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>
>> We have roughly 3 hours for the opt-in WG meeting in Minneapolis.
>> After discussions with Aaron, we will be spending a good chunk of our
>> time trying to scope the problem. One way to divide the topic into
>> more manageable chunks is to think of a division into three problems:
>>
>> (1) "ISP": If GENI acts like an ISP, how do users gain access to
>> that, both on traditional Ethernet-style (campus) networks and on
>> wireless networks (802.11 and cellular)? What incentives are there?
>>
>> (2) "Generalized P2P": If end user resources become part of the
>> experimental infrastructure, how can users restrict the use of such
>> resources and how can experimenters access those resources?
>>
>> (3) Network services: How do users get access to network services?
>> What are the motivations and possible incentive/payment mechanisms?
>>
>> All three problems have both a technical component, such as protocols
>> and issues of trust, an economic component (who pays and in what
>> currency) and a policy/legal component, such as the usual issues that
>> worry institutional review boards (IRBs), including privacy and
>> informed consent.
>>
>> To help structure the discussion, I'd like to invite members of the
>> WG to present brief talks on WG-related topics, not necessarily
>> following the structure above. Please let me know as soon as possible
>> what you would want to talk about, so that I can put together an  
>> agenda.
>>
>> Henning
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> opt-in-wg mailing list
>> opt-in-wg@...
>> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg
>>

_______________________________________________
opt-in-wg mailing list
opt-in-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg

[Kevin Miller-12]

My sense of this problem is that a (group or individual) may wish to
opt-in for a particular experiment or arrangement of the GENI
environment, while not participating in some other experiment. Along
these lines, it would be important to be able to specify your opt-in to
specific arrangements.

There seems to be a tussle between the desire to have broad
participation (necessitating a focus on simple, widely-usable
approaches) and enabling granular opt-in controls.

Similar to Matt's thoughts, I'm thinking about approaches involving GENI
elements at the RON/campus edge that provide the essential service of
selecting and divert traffic to GENI.

Though I'm not sure what incentives would work..

-Kevin

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> I think you highlight an important distinction, namely between  
> "individual" and "group" opt-in.
>
> This is fairly similar to how Internet2 is handled on many campuses  
> today; all traffic between US I2 sites traverses Internet2. GENI  
> would be Internet3 in that model... I'm familiar with the Columbia  
> setup, where we have several 'commercial' Internet egress pipes plus  
> our pipe to the Gigapop. We limit per-user commodity Internet traffic  
> volume, but not Internet2 traffic. Thus, at least in our case, this  
> wouldn't be all that attractive to students.
>
> Henning
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Matt Mathis wrote:
>
>  
>> There is another option to consider.  If some portion of the GENI
>> infrastructure is placed at the RONs (Regional Optical Networks,  
>> aka GigaPoPs)
>> or at campus borders, it might be possible to "opt in" at very large
>> granularities by steering some portion of campus traffic through  
>> GENI. The key
>> here is to provide fast "restoration", e.g the capability to  
>> quickly reroute
>> traffic back on to production infrastructure. It also requires some  
>> fairly
>> strong incentive to encourage the users to opt in as a community.
>>
>> There is good low hanging fruit - these days most campuses  
>> segregate dormitory
>> traffic from general university traffic, and subject traffic  
>> between the dorms
>> and external sites to separate bandwidth caps which are often much  
>> smaller
>> than the presented load.  They do this to control the cost of  
>> providing
>> Internet service to the students, who have a huge capacity to share  
>> digital
>> content.  The students would probably happily accept increased  
>> Internet
>> capacity in exchange for a slight reduction in robustness.  The  
>> university
>> might save money by using a metered service for the students.  For  
>> the cost of
>> providing transit service, GENI would have at its disposal a huge  
>> and diverse
>> source of authentic traffic.
>>
>> The tricky parts are getting the "rerouting" to work well enough  
>> and to
>> accurately balance the desirability of the GENI service relative to  
>> the
>> parallel production service, such that the users continue to prefer  
>> to opt in
>> as a block, but they do not become so addicted that turning off  
>> GENI causes
>> problems.  "Prime time down time" should probably be an ongoing  
>> operational
>> requirement.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Matt Mathis      http://www.psc.edu/~mathis
>> Work:412.268.3319    Home/Cell:412.654.7529
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know
>> "The Truth" and use force to apply it to others.
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> We have roughly 3 hours for the opt-in WG meeting in Minneapolis.
>>> After discussions with Aaron, we will be spending a good chunk of our
>>> time trying to scope the problem. One way to divide the topic into
>>> more manageable chunks is to think of a division into three problems:
>>>
>>> (1) "ISP": If GENI acts like an ISP, how do users gain access to
>>> that, both on traditional Ethernet-style (campus) networks and on
>>> wireless networks (802.11 and cellular)? What incentives are there?
>>>
>>> (2) "Generalized P2P": If end user resources become part of the
>>> experimental infrastructure, how can users restrict the use of such
>>> resources and how can experimenters access those resources?
>>>
>>> (3) Network services: How do users get access to network services?
>>> What are the motivations and possible incentive/payment mechanisms?
>>>
>>> All three problems have both a technical component, such as protocols
>>> and issues of trust, an economic component (who pays and in what
>>> currency) and a policy/legal component, such as the usual issues that
>>> worry institutional review boards (IRBs), including privacy and
>>> informed consent.
>>>
>>> To help structure the discussion, I'd like to invite members of the
>>> WG to present brief talks on WG-related topics, not necessarily
>>> following the structure above. Please let me know as soon as possible
>>> what you would want to talk about, so that I can put together an  
>>> agenda.
>>>
>>> Henning
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> opt-in-wg mailing list
>>> opt-in-wg@...
>>> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg
>>>
>>>      
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opt-in-wg mailing list
> opt-in-wg@...
> http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg
>  

_______________________________________________
opt-in-wg mailing list
opt-in-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/opt-in-wg