Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of ShadowNet-Report-March-2012

Timestamp:

03/31/12 13:40:36 (12 years ago)

Author:

griff@netlab.uky.edu

Comment:

--

ShadowNet-Report-March-2012

@@ +1 @@
+[[PageOutline]]
+
+= GENI Shadownet Project Status Report = 
+
+Period: Post GEC 13 Report
+
+== I. Major accomplishments ==
+
+The following highlights our accomplishments
+during the last reporting period.
+
+=== A. Milestones achieved ===
+ * (Milestone S4.a):  Develop and integrate: We completed integration of the Shadownet CM virtualization control software with the measurement and instrumentation toolset INSTOOLS.  We demonstrated this ability at GEC 13
+
+ * (Milestone S4.b): Initial version of webpage: We wrote an initial Shadownet web page which is linked off of the GENI Shadownet wiki page.
+
+
+=== B. Deliverables made ===
+
+ * Shadownet topologies can now be automatically instrumentized.  Users can use Flack (or scripts) to instrumentize and view the  network behavior of their Shadownet slice.
+
+ * We added archival support so that INSTOOLs can archive Shadownet measurement data to iRODS, including support of MDOD metadata (based on the current definitions of MDOD).
+
+== II. Description of work performed during last quarter ==
+
+The following provides a description of the progress made during the last
+reporting period.
+
+
+=== A. Activities and findings ===
+
+Our activities this last reporting period have been primarily focused in
+three areas: improving the robustness and reliability of the Shadownet
+Component Manager (CM), fully integrating Shadownet with INSTOOLs and
+the INSTOOLs Portal, and adding support for the iRODS archival service.
+
+To improve the reliability of the Shadownet CM we have done extensive
+testing of the Shadownet CM under a variety of conditions and contexts.
+We tested a wide variety of possible topologies, several of them being
+large complex topologies with many links.  Our testing helped highlight
+corner cases that failed to instantiate, RSPECs that we were not able to
+correctly handle, and cases where it took unacceptably long to create the
+topology.  As a result, we were able to locate and fix several bugs to make
+topology creation more reliable.  We also made changes that significantly
+improved the speed at which topologies are set up.  Part of the performance
+improvement resulted from better integration with the FLACK GUI to improve
+parallelism. We also identified and fixed issues in the slice termination
+procedure where resources were not being correctly returned to the free pool.
+
+The biggest part of our effort was was focused on fully integrating Shadownet
+with INSTOOLS.  The Shadownet instrumentation process is now fully automated
+and can be invoked from the FLACK GUI.  We also improved the reliabilty and
+accuracy of the Shadownet INSTOOLs Proxy. The proxy now does a better job of
+extracting the information for a particular logical router.  It also can now
+handle and continue to operate in the face or errors much better than before.
+We also improved the way in which Shadownet borrrows an MC from another
+aggregate (in our case, the Kentucky aggregate).
+
+A new feature we added this period is the ability to archive instrumentation
+information to the iRODS archive service.  A nice feature of the iRODS
+service is that it includes a metadata catalog that can be searched.  In
+order to support this feature, we added support to automatically generate the
+metadata based on the GENI MDOD specification.  As a result, not only can
+data be archived to iRODS, but the metadata can also be searched to find data
+of interest.  Moreover, data can be shared with other users via federated
+iRODS servers.  We currently are operating a local iRODS server,
+but have the ability to federate with a single global iRODS server when this
+becomes available.
+
+We demonstrated several of these features at the GEC 13 conference and showed
+how topologies can be quickly and easily setup/torn down across the
+Juniper routers at the four Shadownet sites.  We also showed how Shadownet
+logical routers can be automatically instrumentized via FLACK and the
+measurement information viewed via the INSTOOLs portal.
+
+We created an initial web page providing an overview of Shadownet system and
+the routers available.  We plan to continue to add to this page over time,
+including instructions and examples of how to use Shadownet and the Juniper
+routers in one's experiment.
+
+We continue to manage and operate the four Juniper routers located in
+Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Washington DC, and Atlanta.  During this period
+we completed changes to the routers, particularly the router in Atlanta which
+was the last one added, to better enable them to support communication with
+external resources via GRE tunnels.
+
+We have also continue to work with members of the LAMP/Periscope team toward
+the goal of integrating Perfsonar/Periscope services with INSTOOLS. 
+
+=== B. Project participants ===
+
+The following individuals are involved with the project in one way or another:
+ * Jim Griffioen - Project PI (Kentucky)
+ * Zongming Fei - Project Co-PI (Kentucky)
+ * Kobus van der Merwe - Project Co-PI (AT\&T)
+ * Eric Boyd - Subcontract Lead (Internet2)
+ * Brian Cashman - Network Planning Manager (Internet2)
+ * Lowell Pike - Network administrator (Kentucky)
+ * Hussamuddin Nasir - Technician/Programmer (Kentucky)
+ * Charles Carpenter - Researcher/Programmer (Kentucky)
+ * Emmanouil Mavrogiorgis - Research Staff (AT\&T)
+
+=== C. Publications (individual and organizational) ===
+
+=== D. Outreach activities ===
+
+We gave a Shadownet Demo at GEC 13 showing how Shadownet experiments can be
+automatically instrumented with the INSTOOLs software via the Flack GUI.
+
+=== E. Collaborations ===
+
+Most of our collaborations continue to be with the Shadownet team.  In
+particular, it involves participants from Kentucky,
+AT<pre>&</pre>T, and Internet2, but we have also had several conversations
+with our ProtoGENI and perfSONAR colleagues.
+
+
+=== F. Other Contributions ===
+