Control Framework Working Group System Engineering Report October 29, 2008 Harry Mussman

GEC3 – October 28-30, 2008 www.geni.net 1

Control Framework Working GroupSystem Engineering Report

October 29, 2008

Harry MussmanCF WG System Engineer

[email protected]

groups.geni.netGENI working group wiki

What is the GENI control framework?

October 29, 2008 www.geni.net 2

GENIEnd User

GENI Srvc S3

Visualization Service

GENI Srvc S2GENI Srvc S1

DOE Agg Z(federated aggregate)

Aggr Z

GENI Operations & Management

GENI Aggr A

■ Operator■ Admin

Help Desk & Tools

■ Admin & Account Tools

Host A1

Host Ax

GENI Comp B

Comp B

Measure & Store

Software Storage

● ■Aggr Mgr with Ops Portal

Admin Oper

GENI Clearinghouse

ComponentRegistry

Principal Registry

●■Ticket: Store Query

●■Principal: Register Authen Query

Slice Registry

TicketLog

SoftwareReposit

●■Slice: Register Cred Issue or Tkt Broker Query

●■Soft Mod: Store Get Query

●■Component: Register Query

Research Org A

● Researcher

● ExperimentSupport Tools

Research Org B

● Slice Admin

● PI

LocalPrincipal Registry

EndUser

via Internetor GENI

■ Ops & Mgmt Tools

● ExperimentSupport Tools● Experiment

Control Tools

Experiment Plane

Measurement Plane

● Control Plane

■ Ops and Mgmt Plane

● ■Comp Mgr with Ops Portal

Admin Oper

● ■Aggr Mgr with Ops Portal

Admin Oper

Control framework includes: Clearinghouse Registries, each Aggregate Manager and users such as Researchers with their Experiment Control Tools, communicating via the Control Plane.

Control framework includes: Clearinghouse Registries, each Aggregate Manager and users such as Researchers with their Experiment Control Tools, communicating via the Control Plane.

Agenda

• Goals• Introduction to WG SE and roles• Relevant Spiral 1 projects• Control Framework Architecture (CFA) document• Current CF issues• Planned CF documents• CF WG action items


Goals (for this meeting)

• Understand WG SE roles• Get overview of CF WG activities• Discuss work plan for coming year, and make

suggestions• Recommend collaborators and authors


Who am I?

• Harry Mussman– Current: Senior Systems Engineer in the GPO at BBN– Last: Voice-over-IP architect at BridgePort Networks

(a startup) and GTE Internetworking/Genuity– BSEE Univ Michigan, MSEE Northwestern Univ, PhD

Stanford Univ– [email protected]

• GENI roles:– Control Framework WG SE– Opt-in WG SE– GPO coordinator for six Spiral 1 projects


Role of the Control Framework WG SE

• Frame technical issues from top-down – Collect issues from WG, compile and revise– Use to identify and structure WG documents

• Synthesize input from bottom-up– Collect input from WG, and distribute– Look for and summarize consensus (or lack of it)

• Draft WG documents…– Manage process to completion

• Assist WG communications– Take and distribute notes– Maintain wiki


How WG Creates a Document

• SE drafts document• GPO does internal review• SE posts first draft

– On wiki (to start); repository up RSN

• WG discusses document on WG list– Possible one-on-one follow-ups

• SE assembles changes, and revises• SE posts revision• (Repeat, until document completed)


Agenda



www.geni.net 9

GENI Spiral 1 Integration: Five Control Framework Clusters

1578 Overlay Hosting Nodes1578 Overlay

Hosting Nodes

1579 ProtoGENI

1579 ProtoGENI

1595 Great Plains Environment for Ntwk Innovation

1595 Great Plains Environment for Ntwk Innovation

1646 CMU Testbeds

1646 CMU Testbeds

1609 DETERTrial Integ

1609 DETERTrial Integ

1642 Instrumentation

Tools

1642 Instrumentation

Tools

1613 Enterprise

GENI

1613 Enterprise

GENI

1600 PlanetLab

1600 PlanetLab

1658 Mid-Atlantic Crossroads

1658 Mid-Atlantic Crossroads

1602 Sensor/Actuat

or Network

1602 Sensor/Actuat

or Network

1582 ORCA/BEN

1582 ORCA/BEN

1599 Vehicular Mobile

Network

1599 Vehicular Mobile

Network

1660 ORBIT Framework

1660 ORBIT Framework

1601 Virtual Tunnels

1601 Virtual Tunnels

1657WIMAX

1657WIMAX

1663 Digital Object

Registry

1663 Digital Object

Registry

1633 Kansei Sensor Network

1633 Kansei Sensor Network

1628 Measurement

System

1628 Measurement

System

1604 GENI Meta

Operations

1604 GENI Meta

Operations

1643 Programmable

Edge Node

1643 Programmable

Edge Node

1621 GUSH Tools

1621 GUSH Tools

1622 Provisioning

Service

1622 Provisioning

Service

1650 Regional

Opt-In

1650 Regional

Opt-In

1632 Security Architecture

1632 Security Architecture

1645 Million- Node GENI1645 Million- Node GENI

1610 GENI at 4-

Year Colleges

1610 GENI at 4-

Year Colleges

Cluster A Cluster ECluster D Cluster CCluster B

Key:

Projects with active Spiral 1clearinghouse interfaces

STUDY ALL PICK ONE

1619 Optical Access

Networks

1619 Optical Access

Networks

Column labels showcommon control framework

Highlighted Spiral 1 projects are central or highly relevant to Control Framework

Highlighted Spiral 1 projects are central or highly relevant to Control Framework

1653 Data Plane

Measurements

1653 Data Plane

Measurements

1631 Embedded Real-time

Measurements

1631 Embedded Real-time

Measurements

Spiral 1 Projects

• Five Spiral 1 projects are focused on control frameworks for different clusters of projects:– 1609 DETER (Cluster A)– 1600 Planetlab (Cluster B)– 1579 ProtoGENI (Cluster C)– 1582 ORCA (Cluster D)– 1660 ORBIT (Cluster E)

• Each is implementing Clearinghouse Registries, and reference software for an Aggregate Manager.

• Three Spiral 1 projects are highly relevant to the CFs:– 1621 GUSH tools– 1632 Security Architecture– 1663 Digital Object Registry


continued (2)

• CF is highest risk item for Spiral 1.• Having five CFs:

– Will mitigate risks.– Will bring unique contributions to the table.– Allows strengths to be identified, for inclusion in final CF.– Prevents the loss of good ideas.

• Expect consolidation over time, but no “sudden death”.• How do we:

– Clearly describe each CF, with a common vocabulary?– Understand similarities and differences?– Identify common issues, and get them resolved?– Work towards defining a “final” CF?


Agenda



Control Framework Architecture Document

• Drafted, and now ready for review by CF WG: http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/GeniControlFrameworkArchitecture/102008_GENI-ARCH-CP-01.4.pdf

• Intent:– Clearly describe each CF, with a common vocabulary.– Understand similarities and differences.– Identify common issues.– A way towards defining a “final” CFA

• Approach:– Separate the CFA into parts, indicating architectural options and

current choices.– Provide multiple “worked examples”.– Provide a “linear” structure, to decompose the CFA, and be able to

understand structure/features of each current CF implementation.


http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/GeniControlFrameworkArchitecture/102008_GENI-ARCH-CP-01.4.pdf

http://groups.geni.net/geni/attachment/wiki/GeniControlFrameworkArchitecture/102008_GENI-ARCH-CP-01.4.pdf

continued (2)

• Structure of document:– Start with system design overview to understand structure and

concepts. (Section 3)– List features and functions that must be included. (Section 4)– Present control framework structure, including entities, interfaces,

principals, services and objects. (Section 5)– Consider each interface, plus major concepts, and present

examples of usage that walks through key scenarios. (Sections 6 – 11)

– Include sections to summarize five current control frameworks being implemented for Spiral 1. (Sections 12 – 16)


continued (3)

• Shows current architecture choices:– Generally common to current implementations.– Control interfaces include APIs that follow a web services model,

using SOAP and https (for a secure channel).– Principals (and services) have global identities, and are identified

and authenticated with certificates from a PKI– Authorization is handled with signed tokens (certificates) that are

passed from registry, to researcher, to aggregate, etc., based on an underlying trust management system.

• Has allowed several architectural issues to be identified.


Agenda



Identified Control Framework Issues

• Issue 1: CFA includes authentication and authorization techniques that are strongly dependent on security architecture.– Are current choices reasonable?– What changes will have to be made as security

architecture is formulated?– 1632 Security Architecture project will address this

issue.– Who in WG is interested in this issue?


continued (2)

• Issue 2: Identity and authentication should include use of existing identity management systems, to permit easier federation– Which system(s)? InCommon? Others?– How can this best be done?– Who in WG is interested in this issue?


continued (3)

• Issue 3: CFA includes authorization techniques that are based on signed tokens.– This is fundamental to current CFA.– What needs to be done to properly verify signed

tokens? – What needs to be done to properly verify the identity of

offering principal (service)?– Can we be sure that this will work securely in a large

scale system?– Who in WG is interested in this issue?


continued (4)

• Issue 4: CFA authorization mechanism is part of a larger trust management system.– Principals have “credential” (signed “trust assertion”).– Aggregate Manager accepts credential, and uses a local “policy

checker” to decide whether (or not) to authorize resource assignment.

– How does Policy Checker work?– Can it be extended to flexibly utilize new parameters and

approaches?– How can trust management be established over diverse entities, to

permit wide-ranging federation?– Who in WG is interested in this issue?


continued (5)

• Issue 5: Current CF implementations have clearinghouse registries (and related authority services) that vary.– From centralized to distributed.– With different arrangements of registries and related

authority services.– Can one CFA accommodate them all?– How?– Who in WG is interested in this issue?


continued (6)

• Issue 6: Current CF implementations have different token flows for requesting resources, etc.– Can we identify and evaluate the differences?– Can we have a flexible arrangement for future extensions?– How does this interact with the resource description approach?– Is the current approach to an Rspec sufficient, or does it need to be

extended?– Who in WG is interested in this issue?


Next Steps for CFA Document

• Continue to identify and address issues.– Fold solutions back into CFA document.

• Provide a “linear” structure for the CFA.– To be able to decompose the CFA.– And apply to understanding the structure/features of each current

CF implementation.

• Continue reviews of CFA document, revise, and repeat until complete.• Who in WG is interested in helping?

• Work toward v2 of CFA document, as we learn from Spiral 1 implementations.


Agenda



Planned Control Framework Documents

• Architecture:– CF Architecture, v1 DRAFT compete 10/17/08– CF Architecture, v2 DRAFT due 6/16/09

• Subsystems:– Clearinghouse Subsystem Technical Description, v1

DRAFT due 2/15/09– Clearinghouse Subsystem Technical Description, v2

DRAFT due 7/16/09– Clearinghouse Subsystem Intfc Cntrl Doc, v1

DRAFT due 3/1/09– Clearinghouse Subsystem Intfc Cntrl Doc, v2

DRAFT due 8/1/09


Control Framework Action Items

• 1)

• 2)

• 3)

• 4)

• 5)


Follow-up

• Notes, slides, actions, etc will be sent to the working group mail list and posted on the wiki page: http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GeniOptIn


http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/GeniSubstrate