Overview
| Comment: | Put all challenges as "testbed requirement vs. CN characteristic/requirement". |
|---|---|
| Downloads: | Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive |
| Timelines: | family | ancestors | descendants | both | trunk |
| Files: | files | file ages | folders |
| SHA1: |
542baf991dd6fa4e98abe7fad37e8ae1 |
| User & Date: | ivan on 2012-09-25 19:16:09 |
| Other Links: | manifest | tags |
Context
|
2012-09-25
| ||
| 22:02 |
Some changes suggested by Axel Neumann.
- Rewording of intro to challenges slide (also reversed title). - Indicate interesting features of OpenWrt. - Mention root access to containers. - LXC is used to manage containers. - Change title of experiments slide. - Indicate minimum layer available to experiments. - Mention IEEE P2P'12 demos. - Indicate that DLEP and API experiments don't require slices. - Also, API experiments will soon be supported, but not yet. check-in: a413d4ac9a user: ivan tags: trunk | |
| 19:16 | Put all challenges as "testbed requirement vs. CN characteristic/requirement". check-in: 542baf991d user: ivan tags: trunk | |
| 10:38 | Replaced OPLAN logo with vectorized one provided by Malcolm Matson plus footer text. check-in: 5f565bb838 user: ivan tags: trunk | |
Changes
Modified script.txt from [dba7698cbe] to [2552d02c56].
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
..
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
** Simple management vs. Distributed node ownership - manage devices belonging to diverse owners? ** Features vs. Lightweight, low cost - support devices ranging from PCs to embedded boards? ** Heterogeneity vs. Compatibility - work with devices which allow little customization? - support diverse connectivity and link technologies (wireless, wired, fiber)? ** Familiarity & flexibility vs. System stability - Researchers prefer a familiar Linux env with root access. - isolate experiments that share the same node? - keep nodes stable to avoid in-place maintenance? Accessing node locations ................................................................................ - allow interaction at the lowest possible layer of the CN while not disrupting or overusing it? ** Traffic collection vs. Privacy of CN users - allow experiments performing traffic collection and characterization? - avoid researchers spying on users' data? ** Link instability vs. Management robustness - deal with frequent network outages in the CN when managing nodes? ** Reachability vs. IP address provisioning - We have IPv4 scarcity and incompatibility between CNs, lack of IPv6 support. - support testbed spanning different CNs? * Community-Lab testbed architecture |
|
|
|
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
..
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
** Simple management vs. Distributed node ownership - manage devices belonging to diverse owners? ** Features vs. Lightweight, low cost - support devices ranging from PCs to embedded boards? ** Compatibility vs. Heterogeneity - work with devices which allow little customization? - support diverse connectivity and link technologies (wireless, wired, fiber)? ** Familiarity & flexibility vs. System stability - Researchers prefer a familiar Linux env with root access. - isolate experiments that share the same node? - keep nodes stable to avoid in-place maintenance? Accessing node locations ................................................................................ - allow interaction at the lowest possible layer of the CN while not disrupting or overusing it? ** Traffic collection vs. Privacy of CN users - allow experiments performing traffic collection and characterization? - avoid researchers spying on users' data? ** Management robustness vs. Link instability - deal with frequent network outages in the CN when managing nodes? ** Reachability vs. IP address provisioning - We have IPv4 scarcity and incompatibility between CNs, lack of IPv6 support. - support testbed spanning different CNs? * Community-Lab testbed architecture |
Modified slides.svg from [8ad7d26ef4] to [0e2fe8a887].
cannot compute difference between binary files