[AG-TECH] AG 2.0 and static multicast addresses

[Ivan R. Judson]

Hey Mike,

I'm working on the plan that I said we're going to present to folks. I can't
reassure you of the things you've asked below.  Please read the plan we'll
be presenting (hopefully by the end of the day Friday).  The firewall issue
is a separate issue that we have to address anyway, but we believe we have a
working plan in place for that as well (although it's more just aspects of
the AG2 design that enable us to deal with firewalls sanely).

Fwiw, Stephens request for sdr announcements is a great idea. It's something
I'd like to see put into bugzilla as a server feature request. *AND* just
because bugzilla is here at Argonne doesn't mean ANY OF YOU OUT THERE can't
grab the code from cvs and implement a new feature or fix bugs :)

--Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Daw [mailto:mike.daw at man.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:53 AM
> To: judson at mcs.anl.gov; 'Jennifer Teig von Hoffman'; 
> ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: RE: [AG-TECH] AG 2.0 and static multicast addresses
> 
> 
> Ivan,
> 
> Just reassure me - once a venue has a multicast address/port, 
> that address/port is forever tied to that venue, right (at 
> least for the life of the venue)? I mean, it couldn't work 
> otherwise, could it? If that's the case, I don't understand 
> the difference between AG2.0 and now, with respect to 
> firewalls, etc. If you want to have a meeting in Fuller Sail 
> Room (the new AG2.0 version of Full Sail Room), you will know 
> its address and port and your firewall can be configured to 
> cope with that.
> 
> I realise there are problems if venues are used in 
> substantially different ways to now - e.g. a venue created 
> just for a single meeting or even a single brief purpose 
> (e.g. a 10 minute visualization?), then destroyed. Is that 
> what you're envisaging?
> 
> Or am I missing something? (E.g. a brain)
> 
> Yours,
> Confused of Manchester
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov [mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov]On
> > Behalf Of Ivan R. Judson
> > Sent: 04 February 2003 22:18
> > To: 'Jennifer Teig von Hoffman'; ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> > Subject: RE: [AG-TECH] AG 2.0 and static multicast addresses
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jennifer, and everybody else :-),
> >
> > We have been thinking about these issues, more lately than ever 
> > before. As anyone who was in the town hall realized today, 
> ANL is now 
> > a corporate-like institution wrt firewalls. We have one, 
> and we don't 
> > accept incoming connections unless we put conduits in place.
> >
> > However, we do have a plan in our minds -- we're working on 
> getting it 
> > on paper (well digital paper) -- to share with the community soon; 
> > probably before the retreat.
> >
> > I'm glad you brought this up, since it's probably a concern that 
> > affects more and more users.
> >
> > --Ivan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov 
> [mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov] 
> > > On Behalf Of Jennifer Teig von Hoffman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 3:52 PM
> > > To: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> > > Subject: [AG-TECH] AG 2.0 and static multicast addresses
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi everybody, and especially Ivan :-) ,
> > >
> > > Having had a bit of time to reflect on today's town hall, 
> I'm quite 
> > > worried about the fact that AG 2.0 will shift us to a system of 
> > > exclusively dynamically-generated multicast addresses for venues 
> > > (even allowing for some transition time and special transition 
> > > venues).
> > >
> > > At first this worried me purely in the context of the 
> implications 
> > > of nodes running 1.x not being able to co-exist in virtual venues 
> > > with nodes running 2.x; if this incompatibility exists, 
> it's going 
> > > to be a nightmare for those of us planning even very 
> small events, 
> > > even if the transitional rooms Ivan spoke of today were 
> available. 
> > > If you were, say,
> > > planning a meeting among 5 sites, you'd need to either be 
> sure that
> > > everybody was running the same version of the software, 
> or be sure to
> > > reserve the "transitional" venue where everybody could 
> co-exist. My
> > > hunch is that most events would take place in these
> > > transitional rooms,
> > > since most of us wouldn't be able to find the time to ask
> > > everybody what
> > > version of AGTk they were running.
> > >
> > > But then, after some time worrying about that, I started worrying 
> > > about ports and firewalls and such. I'm already aware of 
> a couple AG 
> > > nodes where they have to ask their firewall admins to unblock 
> > > specific ports/addresses in order to participate in a 
> given meeting;
> > > surely that
> > > sort of firewall reconfiguration won't happen on the fly
> > > along with the
> > > dynamic address allocation. So people at those nodes wouldn't
> > > be able to
> > > upgrade to 2.0 unless they could convince their network
> > > security staff
> > > to make some substantial changes.
> > >
> > > And I'm guessing that if I (a relatively non-technical user) am 
> > > coming up with these concerns, there are probably more big issues
> > > here too --
> > > it's a major change in the underpinnings of the AG.
> > >
> > > - Jennifer
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>