Transport protocols and bulk file transfer

[Scott Brim <>]

Architecturally I don't like having Phoebus be the mediator for
everything OpenFlow.  What about the next service that comes along that
also wants to have control, for instance something that does
compression?  We get fighting between the "helpers", and we need to make
every one aware of every other, n**2.  Better to have a single master
that can invoke all of them, no?

Steve Wallace had a decent idea: On the OS3E user interface web page,
where you set up OpenFlow, have a checkbox for "use Phoebus".  We can
have other checkboxes for other optional service enhancers.  In the
future when Phoebus becomes the default, we can just remove the
checkbox.  Also, doing it this way makes Phoebus more visible to the users.

Yes, you need such a checkbox on every app (we could do this for Globus
file transfer too), and that's not ideal.  Looking for further thoughts.

Thanks ... Scott

On 05/01/12 10:14, Aaron Brown allegedly wrote:
> My initial thoughts on Phoebus and OpenFlow:
> 
>  1. Have OpenFlow mediate which wiretapped flows get shunted over to
> Phoebus. i.e. have a fast path for most traffic, and then for specific
> flows, the OpenFlow controller might have them shunted over to a Phoebus
> box for handling.
>  2. Have Phoebus setup an OpenFlow path, either shared or
> dedicated, similar to how it could use OSCARS to build a circuit. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Aaron
> 
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> 
>> If Internet2 ends up doing multi-domain openflow (I shudder at the
>> thought, but that's another topic) with the regionals, how does Phoebus
>> fit in?  Would we have to have Phoebus wiretap the openflow setup, so
>> that it can mediate between different path segments?
>>
>> Thanks ... Scott
> 
> Internet2 Spring Member Meeting
> April 22-25, 2012 - Arlington, Virginia
> http://events.internet2.edu/2012/spring-mm/
>