D2.3 First Sustainability Plan

56 

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Full text

(1)

 

Project  Acronym  

Fed4FIRE  

Project  Title  

Federation  for  FIRE  

Instrument  

Large  scale  integrating  project  (IP)  

Call  identifier  

FP7-­‐ICT-­‐2011-­‐8  

Project  number  

318389  

Project  website  

www.fed4fire.eu  

   

D2.3  –  First  Sustainability  Plan  

 

Work  package  

WP2  

Task  

T2.3  

Due  date  

31/07/2013  

Submission  date  

31/07/2013  

Deliverable  lead  

Jan  Van  Ooteghem  (iMinds)  

Version  

1.0  

Authors  

Jan  Van  Ooteghem  (iMinds)  

Bram  Naudts  (iMinds)  

Wim  Vandenberghe  (iMinds)  

Brecht  Vermeulen  (iMinds)  

Stefan  Bouckaert  (iMinds)    

Steve  Taylor  (IT  Innovation)  

Paul  Grace  (IT  Innovation)  

Felicia  Lobillo  (ATOS)  

Josep  Martrat  (ATOS)  

Luis  Muñoz  (UC)  

Pablo  Sotres  (UC)  

Mark  Sawyer  (EPCC)  

(2)

2  of  56  

Reviewers  

Dai  Davies  (DANTE)  

Kostas  Kavoussanakis  (EPCC)  

   

Abstract  

This  document  provides  an  initial  definition  of  federation  and  

sustainability,  stakeholder  analysis,  potential  services  offered  

by  the  federation,  a  first  proposal  of  business  scenarios  and  

finally   a   checklist   for   analysing   the   viability   of   the   proposed  

scenarios.    

Keywords  

Sustainability,   federation,   methodology,   stakeholders,  

services,  business  scenarios,  evaluation  checklist  

   

Nature  of  the  deliverable  

R  

Report  

X  

P  

Prototype  

 

D  

Demonstrator  

 

O  

Other  

 

Dissemination  level  

PU   Public  

X  

PP   Restricted   to   other   programme   participants  

(including  the  Commission)  

 

RE   Restricted   to   a   group   specified   by   the  

consortium  (including  the  Commission)  

 

CO   Confidential,   only   for   members   of   the  

consortium  (including  the  Commission)  

 

(3)

3  of  56  

Disclaimer  

 

The   information,   documentation   and   figures   available   in   this   deliverable,   is   written   by   the  

Fed4FIRE  

(Federation  for  FIRE)  

–  project  consortium  under  EC  co-­‐financing  contract  FP7-­‐ICT-­‐

318389   and   does   not   necessarily   reflect   the   views   of   the   European   Commission.   The  

European   Commission   is   not   liable   for   any   use   that   may   be   made   of   the   information  

contained  herein.  

(4)

4  of  56  

Executive  Summary  

We   define   of   a   future   federation   of   testbed   facilities   as   “a   collection   of   multiple   independent   testbeds   that   can   be   coordinated   in   different   ways   for   the   creation   of   rich,   multi-­‐functional   environments   for   testing   and   experimentation;   and   has   clear  benefits   for   its   main   stakeholders   -­‐   experimenters,  and  facility  providers.”    

The   Fed4FIRE   project   is   currently   bringing   together   the   knowledge   and   competences   of   different   stakeholders  within  the  FIRE  scene  to  collaborate  and  set  up  a  federated  platform  of  facilities,  mostly   focused   on   a   technical   and   operational   solution.   One   of   the   most   important   issues   today   is   the   sustainability  of  ICT  research  infrastructures  after  research  projects  end.  Many  projects  struggle  with   this  issue,  as  we  have  seen  in  different  FIRE  initiatives.    

Within  this  task  we  investigate  how  this  federation  should  be  set  up,  and  kept  up  and  running  after   the  Fed4FIRE  project  finishes,  then  when  the  funding  from  the  EC  ends.  A  complex  value  network  of   different  types  of  stakeholders  must  be  managed.  The  big  challenge  is  search  the  value  for  and  to   incorporate   the   interests   of   all   stakeholders   in   order   to   make   sure   they   clearly   benefit   from   this   federation.  Examples  are  knowledge  gains,  increased  usage  of  the  individual  facility  infrastructures,   improved  service  delivery  to  the  experimenters,  economies  of  scale,  etc.    

Within   this   deliverable   we   have   presented   our   methodology   to   be   used   in   the   remainder   of   the   sustainability  task  within  the  Fed4FIRE  project.  First  we  have  presented  a  definition  for  “federation”   and  “sustainability”.  This  work  was  supported  by  a  thorough  literature  review.  Next  we  have  shown   the   Fed4FIRE   landscape   with   current   and   potential   future   stakeholders,   where   we   consider   the   federator,  the  experimenters  and  facility  providers  to  be  the  main  stakeholders.  Others  such  as  end   users,   funding   bodies   and   policy   makers,   software   developers   and   suppliers   of   infrastructure   and   services,  and  research  initiatives  also  play  an  important  role  and  will  affect  the  value  network.  The   potential  services  to  be  offered  to  experimenters  and  the  facilities  by  the  federation  are  listed  and  an   indication  of  the  cost  model  methodology  is  shown.  Starting  from  the  value  proposition,  five  business   scenarios   have   been   defined,   ranging   from   the   “Invisible   Coordination”   up   to   the   “Integrator”   scenario.   In   order   to   analyse   the   scenarios   in   a   structured   way,   we   have   created   an   evaluation   checklist.   The   final   goal   is   to   present   a   business   plan   for   the   future   federation,   by   evaluating   the   proposed  business  scenarios  and  indicating  the  most  realistic  strategy.    

This  methodology  is  thus  the  first  presentation  of  our  work  and  will  be  applied  and  refined  in  the   upcoming  months  and  next  deliverables.    

(5)

5  of  56  

Acronyms  and  Abbreviations

 

CSA   Coordination  and  Support  Actions  

EC   European  Commission  

EGI   European  Grid  Initiative  

EU   European  Union  

FFA   Fed4FIRE  Federation  Authority  

FI-­‐PPP   Future  Internet  Public-­‐Private  Partnership     FIRE   Future  Internet  Research  and  Experimentation   FP  7   The  Seventh  Framework  Programme  (2007  –  2013)   ICT   Information  and  Communication  Technology   IMS   IP  Multimedia  Subsystem  

IP   Integrated  Project  

IPR   Intellectual  Property  Rights   OLA   Operational  Level  Agreement   SLA   Service  Level  Agreement   SME   Small  and  Medium  Enterprises   STREP   Specific  Targeted  REsearch  Projects  

(6)

6  of  56  

Table  of  Contents  

1

 

Introduction  ...  8

 

1.1

 

Purpose  and  structure  of  this  deliverable  ...  9

 

1.2

 

Contribution  to  the  project  objective  ...  10

 

1.3

 

Literature  ...  10

 

2

 

Our  view  on  federation  and  sustainability  ...  13

 

2.1

 

What  is  federation?  ...  13

 

2.2

 

What  is  sustainability?  ...  13

 

2.2.1

 

The  value  proposition  ...  13

 

2.2.2

 

Operating  the  federation  ...  14

 

2.2.3

 

Sustainability  plans  of  the  individual  facilities  ...  14

 

3

 

Federation  stakeholders  ...  16

 

3.1

 

Main  stakeholders  ...  17

 

3.1.1

 

Experimenter  ...  17

 

3.1.2

 

Facility  provider  ...  18

 

3.1.3

 

Federator  ...  18

 

3.2

 

Other  stakeholders  ...  19

 

3.2.1

 

End  users  ...  19

 

3.2.2

 

Policy  makers  and  funding  bodies  ...  19

 

3.2.3

 

Suppliers  ...  19

 

3.2.4

 

Research  initiatives  ...  20

 

4

 

Potential  services  offered  by  the  federator  ...  21

 

4.1

 

Potential  services  offered  to  the  experimenter  ...  21

 

4.1.1

 

The  ability  to  experiment  ...  22

 

4.1.2

 

Central  portal  ...  23

 

4.1.3

 

Experimenter  training  ...  24

 

4.1.4

 

Shared  support  services  ...  24

 

4.1.5

 

SLA  guarantees  ...  25

 

4.2

 

Potential  services  offered  to  the  facilities  ...  25

 

4.3

 

Cost  accounting  model  ...  27

 

5

 

Different  business  scenarios  for  federation  ...  29

 

5.1

 

Methodology  ...  29

 

5.2

 

The  federation  scenarios  ...  29

 

(7)

7  of  56  

5.2.2

 

Advisor  ...  33

 

5.2.3

 

Matchmaker  ...  35

 

5.2.4

 

One  Stop  Shop  ...  38

 

5.2.5

 

Integrator  ...  40

 

5.3

 

Summary  of  findings  ...  43

 

6

 

Evaluating  and  benchmarking  the  different  business  scenarios  ...  45

 

6.1

 

Evaluation  checklist  ...  45

 

6.2

 

From  business  scenario  to  business  plan  ...  47

 

7

 

Conclusions  and  future  work  ...  48

 

References  ...  49

 

Appendix  A:  Literature  overview  ...  50

 

 

(8)

8  of  56  

1

Introduction  

The   purpose   of   the   Fed4FIRE   project   is   bringing   together   the   knowledge   and   competences   of   different   stakeholders   within   the   FIRE   scene   to   collaborate   and   set   up   a   federated   platform   for   testbed   facilities.   This   can   bring   a   lot   of   opportunities   to   all   the   stakeholders   such   as   knowledge   gains,  increased  usage  of  the  facility  infrastructure  of  the  facilities,  improved  service  delivery  to  the   experimenters,  economies  of  scale,  etc.    

Sustainability   of   ICT   research   infrastructures   in   general   and   FIRE   facilities   in   particular   has   been   a   major  concern  for  many  years.  The  difficult  part  is  to  keep  the  federation  up  and  running  after  the   project,  when  the  funding  from  the  EC  ends  and  each  stakeholder  must  decide  whether  the  concept   of   a   federation   is   worthwhile   to   sustain.   Different   stakeholders   such   as   experimenters,   facility   providers  (either  individually  or  represented  throughout  other  federations),  entities  supporting  the   previous  stakeholders  with  infrastructure  and  software,  funding  bodies  and  regulatory  instances,  and   other   research   projects   have   their   own   demands   and   individual   plans   for   the   future.   The   big   challenge   is   to   incorporate   the   interests   of   all   stakeholders   in   order   to   make   sure   that   every   stakeholder  has  a  clear  benefit.  

A   strong   value   proposition   with   clear   indication   of   the   benefits   for   all   stakeholders   must   be   the   fundamental   idea   to   start   from.   This   can   be   seen   in   Figure   1,   as   the   central   component   of   the   business  scenario.  How  will  the  federation  position  itself  towards  its  stakeholders:  what  will  be  the   offer   (services)   and   how   will   it   contribute   to   the   expectations   and   demands   of   the   facilities   and   experimenters?    

 

 Figure  1:  Components  within  the  sustainability  task  of  the  Fed4FIRE  project  

The  next  step  is  making  the  value  proposition  sustainable  in  the  long  run  on  different  levels.  On  a   technical   level,   the   services   offered   should   be   state   of   the   art,   kept   up   to   date,   be   reliable   and   manageable.   A   solid   governance   structure   should   be   set   up   to   manage   responsibilities,   deal   with   facilities   joining   and   leaving,   service   level   agreements   (SLA),   running   actual   operations,   etc.   This  

Governance Technical Economic Operational Value  proposition   Federation Facilities Experimenters

Business  scenarios

Other   federation   initiatives Other  stakeholders

Reality  

(9)

9  of  56  

includes   day-­‐to-­‐day   operational   functionality,   such   as   dealing   with   first   level   support,   maintaining   and   upgrading   services   and   central   infrastructure.   Finally   the   economic   picture   must   fit   (costs   for   running  the  operational  activities  within  the  federation  should  be  covered,  either  by  contributions  in   kind,   revenues   or   funding   mechanisms).   These   activities   must   be   in   place   in   order   to   support   the   value  proposition  in  the  long  run.  

The   value   proposition   will   impact   the   stakeholders.   The   main   stakeholders   considered   are   the   facilities,  which  are  the  basis  of  the  federation,  as  well  as  the  stakeholders,  the  “consumers”  of  the   services.   Besides,   other   stakeholders   such   as   end   users,   suppliers   of   software   and   hardware,   and   policy   &   funding   bodies,   and   research   initiatives   will   be   impacting   or   being   impacted   by   the   federation.  A  clear  understanding  of  the  relations  and  impact  must  be  investigated.        

Different  business  scenarios  will  be  proposed  and  evaluated,  ranging  from  very  conservative  to  fully   integrated  approaches  in  terms  of  service  offering.  This  of  course  will  have  an  effect  on  the  different   levels.  More  services  will  complicate  the  governing  structure  and  technical  and  operational  activities,   as  well  as  impact  the  economic  feasibility.  Each  scenario  will  be  objectively  evaluated  qualitatively   and  quantitatively,  based  upon  a  predefined  checklist  of  criteria,  A  reality  check  will  be  executed  as   different  projects  are  currently  doing  the  same  exercise,  and  we  can  learn  from  their  experiences.  As   it  is  not  required  to  define  the  best  scenario,  we  will  consider  evolution  options  over  time  to  move   between  scenarios.    

At  the  end  of  the  project  we  will  present  a  business  plan  for  the  future  federation,  by  evaluating  the   proposed  business  scenarios  and  indicating  the  most  realistic  strategy.    

1.1

Purpose  and  structure  of  this  deliverable  

Within  this  deliverable  entitled  “First  sustainability  plan”,  we  focus  on  the  methodology  and  different   steps  required  to  present  our  final  business  plan  at  the  end  of  the  project.  

We  start  with  a  literature  review,  listing  documents  and  other  information  on  sustainability  within   federations  that  could  be  relevant  for  the  reality  check.  Based  upon  this,  we  present  in  section  0  our   high  level  definition  of  a  federation  and  our  view  on  sustainability.  In  section  3  we  list  the  different   stakeholders   for   the   future   federation,   including   their   (possible)   roles   within   the   federation,   and   potential   benefits.   Section   4   presents   the   potential   services   offered   by   the   federation.   This   is   an   initial   list   based   upon   the   current   activities   in   the   project   and   ideas   on   future   services.   A   methodology  is  included  on  how  to  quantify  the  costs  for  keeping  the  service  up  and  running,   and   up-­‐to-­‐date  after  the  project,  for  the  federation  as  well  as  for  the  facilities.  In  section  5  we  present   five  potential  business  scenarios  ranging  from  a  very  conservative  to  a  fully  integrated  approach  in   terms  of  service  offering,  starting  from  the  value  proposition  and  interaction  with  the  stakeholders.   To  analyse  the  business  cases  in  a  common  way  we  have  listed  in  section  6  a  set  of  evaluation  criteria   for   business   cases.   These   help   us   to   present   the   final   business   plan   for   the   federation   taking   into   account  the  reality  check  and  potential  migration  paths  of  the  business  cases.  Finally  we  present  our   first  conclusions  and  next  steps.  

This  is  the  first  deliverable  of  this  task.  This  methodology  will  be  refined  and  applied  in  the  upcoming   months   and   is   thus   the   first   presentation   of   our   work.   The   FIRE   landscape   is   a   vast,   complex   and   dynamic   environment   therefore   we   realize   that   this   is   a   first   attempt   to   capture   the   essence   of   sustainability  in  the  context  of  a  federation  model  after  Fed4FIRE.  As  we  continue  to  learn  and  gather   new   insights   and   results   from   other   FIRE   projects,   our   work   plan   can   be   altered   to   react   to   these   changes  and  opportunities.  

(10)

1.2

Contribution  to  the  project  objective  

The   major   goal   of   this   task   is   to   understand   the   sustainability   requirements,   build   the   business   scenarios   and   identify   technical   constraints   to   obtain   a   sustainable   federated   Future   Internet   experimentation  facility  in  Europe.  Different  subtasks  are  envisaged.  

Clear  understanding  of  what  sustainability  means  

Today  different  views  exist  on  the  term  “sustainability”.  Within  this  task  2.3  will  study  the  different   aspects  of  sustainability,  based  on  inputs  from  the  different  stakeholders  and  common  practices  in   other  areas  of  ICT  research  infrastructures.  Also,  the  work  performed  in  other  FIRE  projects  will  be   taken  into  account  and  links  will  be  established  with  the  CSA  project  of  FP7  Call  8.  This  subtask  will   contribute  input  to  Task  8.3  “Sustainable  standardization”.  

Business  models  

Business  models  will  be  developed  that  are  adapted  to  specific  cases  and  scenarios,  depending  on   the   type   of   facility   and   legal   entity   of   the   facility   provider   (e.g.,   research   institute,   university,   company).  As  part  of  this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  build  a  cost  model  for  the  federation,  by  identifying   and  quantifying  all  costs  involved  in  setting  up,  maintaining,  developing  and  managing  the  different   facilities   that   are   part   of   the   federation.   It   will   be   challenging   to   understand   the   balance   between   national  or  regional  funding,  EC  funding  and  industry  funding.  This  will  also  strongly  depend  on  the   specifics   of   the   experimentation   facilities,   the   experimenter   communities   and   the   maturity   of   the   technologies  investigated.  An  important  task  to  take  into  account  is  how  to  deal  with  the  ability  of   (FIRE)  facilities  to  join  and  leave  the  federation  in  a  fluid  way.  Results  of  this  subtask  will  contribute   to  Task  8.2  “Establish  and  operate  federation  authority”.  

Input  to  the  architecture  

Input   will   be   provided   to   the  architecture   task   (Task   2.1)   in   order   to   take   into   account   technical   constraints  that  are  derived  from  sustainability  requirements.  Examples  are  the  requirement  to  have   an   open   architecture   that   is   capable   of   supporting   different   experimenter   communities   (both   academic   and   industrial),   which   is   able   to   reuse   existing   components,   allows   easy   adaptation   and   enhancing   of   existing   infrastructures,   provides   building   blocks   for   new   research   infrastructures,   allows  easy  access  to  the  facilities  for  the  experimenters,  provides  support  for  facility  management   by  the  facility  owners,  etc.  

1.3

Literature  

Table  1  shows  an  overview  of  the  literature  analysed,  most  on  projects  or  initiatives  that  have  the   same  challenges  concerning  sustainability  within  a  federations.  This  is  an  important  exercise,  which   relates  to  the  reality  check  of  the  different  business  scenarios.  A  more  detailed  analysis  can  be  found   in  Appendix  A.  

(11)

Table  1:  Literature  overview   Projects  /  

initiatives  

Sustainability  tasks   Status   Ref  

Cross-­‐disciplinary  projects  and  initiatives  (indirectly  related  to  FIRE)  

OSIRIS   This  EU  FP7  project  (Open  and  Sustainable  ICT  Research  Infrastructure   Strategy)   has   identified   a   list   of   components   of   sustainability   for   setting  up  new  ICT  research  infrastructures.    

The  list  of  components  has  been  as  a  start  to  structure  this  deliverable   and   an   input   to   the   checklist   for   the   different   business   scenarios   in   Section  6.  

Finished   [1]  

EGI   The   European   Grid   Initiative   (EGI)   has   developed   an   updated   taxonomy  of  services  and  a  first  outline  of  potential  business  models   relevant  to  EGI  serving  as  a  basis  for  future  discussion  and  exploration.   The  ecosystem  analysis  in  D2.7  of  the  EGI  project  has  been  used  as  a   start  point  for  identification  of  the  federation  stakeholders  in  Section   3.   The   same   deliverable   provided   useful   input   for   the   initial   identification   of   a   number   of   services   that   could   be   offered   by   the   federation  to  support  usage-­‐based  business  models  in  Section  4.  

Ongoing   [2]  

FedSM   FedSM   is   investigating   service   management   in   federated   e-­‐ Infrastructures  and  cloud  computing  facilities.    

The   FedSM   project   provides   several   federation   models.   These   federation  models  have  been  used  as  starting  point  for  our  analysis  of   federation  business  scenarios  in  Section  5.  

Ongoing   [3]  

FIRE  Coordination  and  Support  Actions  

MyFIRE   The   MyFIRE   Support   Action   gathers   best   practices   for   experimental   facilities.  D4.2  provides  an  overview  of  FIRE  projects  in  Europe  and  the   BRIC  countries  and  an  analysis  of  gaps  in  FIRE  provision.  Sustainability   is  stated  as  the  weakest  link  of  all  testbeds  in  the  European  research   framework.   The   recommendations   on   sustainability   and   business   models  have  been  taken  into  account  throughout  this  document.  An   example  is  the  definition  of  services  and  the  cost  accounting  model  of   Section  4.    

Finished   [4]   [5]  

FIRESTATION   The  FIRESTATION  Support  Action  has  developed  a  FIRE  Roadmap.  The   roadmap  addresses  lifecyle  management,  sustainability  and  services.   In   the   FIRE   Roadmap,   the   components   of   the   OSIRIS   framework   are   used   to   sketch   a   first   sustainability   plan   for   a   federation   of   FIRE   testbeds.  

Finished   [6]  

AmpliFIRE   The  AmpliFIRE  Support  Action  is  developing  a  first  document  to  sketch   the  road  along  which  FIRE  can  evolve  into  2020,  and  the  activities  in   the  surrounding  environment  that  make  this  evolution  possible.   D1.1   assesses   the   sustainability   plans   of   different   experimentation   facilities   by   using   the   business   model   concept   proposed   by   Osterwalder  and  Picquer.  This  work  can  be  used  in  the  future  to  align   the   sustainability   plan   of   the   federation   with   those   of   individual   experimentation  facilities.  

Ongoing   [7]  

   

(12)

FIRE  (Sub)federations  &  projects  

TEFIS   TEstbed  for  Future  Internet  Services  (TEFIS)  supports  Future  Internet   of   Services   Research   by   offering   a   single   access   point   to   different   experimental   facilities   for   communities   of   software   and   business   developers.  

The   exploitation   strategy   is   based   on   individual   partner   exploitation   plans  and  joint  exploitation  of  TEFIS  by  an  informal  partner  network   established   early   2013.   The   revenue   model   of   TEFIS   is   based   on   (EC   funded)  R&D  projects  that  use  TEFIS  as  a  testbed.  

Finished   [8]  

BonFIRE   The   BonFIRE   consortium   brings   together   industrial   and   academic   organisations   in   cloud   computing   to   deliver   a   robust,   reliable   and   sustainable   facility   for   large   scale   experimentally-­‐driven   cloud   research.   The   project   has   created   their   own   sustainability   plan   with   special   attention   for   the   estimation   of   the   real   cost   of   experimentation.  We  follow  this  approach  in  Section  4.  

Ongoing   [9]  

OpenLab   The  OpenLab  project  aims  to  develop,  manage  and  use  a  federation  of   facilities,   including   several   OneLab   testbeds,   for   the   purpose   of   experimentation   and   education   in   the   field   of   communication   networks  for  computer  systems.  The  results  of  this  project  are  highly   related   to   FED4FIRE   and   informal   contacts   have   been   established   to   exchange  information.  

Ongoing   [10]    

OneLab  /   PlanetLab  

The   OneLab   initiative   develops   testbeds   for   the   Future   Internet.   It   offers   a   range   of   services   to   testbed   users   and   owners,   including   an   open  federation  of  testbeds  which  supports  network  research  for  the   Future   Internet.   OneLab   is   also   developing   strong   international   partnerships,   exploring   and   experimenting   with   the   concept   of   ‘federation',  initally  between  testbeds  based  on  the  PlanetLab  model.  

Ongoing   [11]  

XiFi   The  XIFI  Integrating  Project  aims  to  support  advanced  experiments  on   the   FI-­‐PPP   core   platform   in   order   to   leverage   existing   public   investments  in  advanced  infrastructures.  

Ongoing   [12]  

SmartSantander   SmartSantander   is   focused   on   providing   a   Smart   City   laboratory   for   testing   all   types   of   Smart   City   solutions,   ranging   from   the   use   of   sensors   and   their   networking   technologies   to   the   use   of   service   platforms   for   collecting   sensor   information   and   deploying   services.   Under  the  scope  of  SmartSantander  project,  two  documents  regarding   sustainability   issues   have   been   generated   in   two   internal   (to   the   project)  deliverables.  

Ongoing   [13] [14]  

OFELIA   OFELIA  is  a  large  FIRE  Project  whose  main  objective  is  to  provide  an   experimental  facility  to  test  network  architectures  and  solutions.  It  is   based   on   the   use   of   Open   Flow   over   a   number   of   programmable   switches.  The  present  exploitation  plans  in  OFELIA  can  be  considered   as   preliminary   with   a   focus   on   providing   research   and   continued   academic  activity.  

Ongoing   [7]  

(13)

2

Our  view  on  federation  and  sustainability  

This  section  deals  with  the  definition  of  “federation”  and  “sustainability”.  It  is  important  that  there  is   a  clear  understanding  of  both  terms.  It  will  impact  the  remainder  of  the  work  within  this  task.  

2.1

What  is  federation?  

We  have  defined  a  federation  as  follows:  

“A   federation   of   testbed   facilities   is   a   collection   of   multiple   independent   testbeds   that   can   be   coordinated  in  different  ways  for  the  creation  of  rich,  multi-­‐functional  environments  for  testing  and   experimentation;   and   has   clear  benefits   for   its   main   stakeholders   -­‐   experimenters,   and   facility   providers.”  

The   operation   of   the   federation   and   the   tasks   and   roles   of   the   stakeholders   within   it   may   vary   depending  on  the  situation  and  the  aims  of  the  participants  involved.  A  number  of  example  business   federation  scenarios  are  furthermore  worked  out  in  section  5.  

2.2

What  is  sustainability?  

Sustainability,  at  its  most  basic  definition,  is  the  ability  to  continue.  For  example,  if  a  business  wishes   to  continue,  it  must  generate  enough  revenue  to  cover  its  operating  costs.    

Before  we  can  decide  how  to  proceed  after  the  Fed4FIRE  project,  we  must  first  determine  what  we   wish  to  sustain.  What  are  the  key  elements  of  Fed4FIRE  that  we  wish  to  continue  beyond  the  end  of   the  project?  There  are  two  major  aspects  to  the  answer  to  this  question,  as  follows.  

1. We  must  have  federation  stakeholders  –  if  there  are  none,  we  have  no  federation!  

We   must   identify   who   the   main   (potential)   stakeholders   are:   the   actual   organisations   or   people  who  may  want  to  participate  and  the  roles  they  could  play  within  the  federation,  and   the  “customers”.  In  general,  the  two  main  stakeholders  defined  are  the  facility  providers  and   experimenters.  This  is  discussed  further  in  section  3.  

We  must  present  a  clear  value  proposition  in  order  to  attract  them  and  keep  them  interested   in   participating   in   the   federation   and   using   the   services   offered.   In   order   to   do   this,   there   must  be  clear  benefits  for  them.  

2. We   must   enable   the   federation   to   operate  –  facilities  and  experimenters  must  be  able  to   work  with  one  another.  

It  is  likely  that  enabling  the  federation  will  involve  the  provision  of  some  support  services  and   infrastructure.  The  degree  of  support  will  depend  on  the  value  proposition  of  the  federation,   and  will  differ  depending  on  the  business  scenario.      

A  clear  governance  structure  must  be  formed  in  order  to  sustain  the  federation  in  the  long   run   and   responsibilities   should   be   clear.   Besides   sustainability   should   be   guaranteed   on   technical,  economic  and  operational  level,  as  was  depicted  in  the  introduction.    

2.2.1 The  value  proposition  

The  key  factor  is  how  we  can  generate  income  and  economics  indicates  that,  in  order  to  generate   revenue,  an  entity  must  generate  value  –  i.e.  it  must  provide  goods  or  services  its  target  users  find   useful  or  attractive,  and  so  they  will  be  prepared  to  pay  for  them,  and  thus  cover  the  supplier’s  costs.  

(14)

In   a   commercial   world,   the   users   will   be   prepared   to   pay   for   these   goods   and   services,   but   other   funding  patterns  may  be  applicable  for  the  future  federation,  for  example  national  or  EC  grant-­‐based   funding.   The   major   difference   between   commercial   and   grant-­‐based   funding   is   that   grant-­‐based   funding  separates  the  paymaster  from  the  user.  Both  types  can  however  co-­‐exist  next  to  each  other.   In  both  the  commercial  and  public  funded  cases,  the  key  question  of  generating  and  demonstrating   value   still   applies   -­‐   there   must   be   a   clear   benefit   to   the   users   and   the   paymaster   in   keeping   the   operation  alive.    

Value   is   often   described   in   terms   of   benefits   to   the   stakeholders.   Sometimes,   the   benefits   are   concrete,  and  some  other  times  these  benefits  are  abstract.  For  example  a  supermarket’s  benefit  is   clear:  to  supply  groceries  to  its  customers,  at  a  place  local  to  them  and  at  reasonable  cost.  A  research   program   may   have   more   abstract   benefits   –   to   encourage   research   in   order   to   advance   human   knowledge.  Because  research  outcomes  are  not  known  in  advance,  there  is  less  guarantee  of  success   but,  because  of  a  historical  track  record  of  human  advancement  over  many  centuries  has  shown  that   humanity  is  better  off  through  academic  research,  it  continues  to  be  funded.    

The  question  of  generating  value  should  be  encapsulated  in  the  value  proposition  of  the  federation.   In  this  project,  the  sustainability  work  is  responsible  for  determining  the  initial  value  proposition  of  a   future   federation,   and   the   way   it   should   operate   in   order   to   provide   this   value.   The   facilities   themselves  already  deliver  value  to  the  experimenters,  in  that  they  provide  infrastructures  to  enable   specialized  testing.  We  need  to  determine  what  value  the  federation  provides  on  top  of  this,  to  both   the  experimenters  and  the  facilities.  The  actual  value  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  business  scenario   of   a   federation.   Different   business   scenarios   are   presented   in   section   5.   Before   this,   the   main   stakeholders  are  defined,  in  section  3  and  potential  services  offered  in  section  4.    

2.2.2 Operating  the  federation  

In   order   to   provide   the   value   proposed,   an   operational   plan   considering   technical,   economic   and   governance   aspects   should   be   created   answering   the   following   questions.   What   organisational   structure  would  fit  best?  Which  services  will  be  offered  by  the  federation,  and  what  impact  does  the   federation   have   on   the   participating   facilities?   How   do   we   deal   with   future   technical   evolutions?   Who  is  responsible  for  which  tasks?  How  will  this  all  benefit  the  stakeholders?    

Continued,  sustained  operation  requires  effort  (e.g.  work  from  people,  maintenance  of  resources),   and   this   will   require   the   covering   of   costs   to   fund   the   effort.   In   order   to   ensure   that   costs   are   covered,  we  need  to  determine:  

• What  factors  influence  our  costs  

• The  total  operating  costs  of  the  operation  we  wish  to  sustain,  and  

• How  we  can  generate  income  or  find  other  funding  mechanisms  to  cover  these  costs  

An  organisation  will  have  to  be  set  up  establishing  the  viability  of  the  federation  after  the  end  of  the   project.   This   organisation   will   provide   a   focus   for   the   sustainability   activity   on   the   activities   to   be   sustained  in  the  latter  years  of  the  project,  and  thereafter.  The  task  on  “establishment  and  operation   of  the  federation  authority”  will  deal  with  these  matters  in  more  detail,  based  upon  input  from  our   sustainability  work.    

2.2.3 Sustainability  plans  of  the  individual  facilities  

Within  different  FIRE  projects,  and  also  by  individual  facility  providers,  sustainability  discussions  and   plans  have  been  made  or  are  in  the  process  of  being  developed.  At  present,  the  sustainability  work  in   Fed4FIRE   and   the   future   federation   is   progressing   independently   of   the   sustainability   plans   of   the   individual  facilities  that  are  part  of  the  Fed4FIRE  project  and  the  services  they  provide.  However,  we  

(15)

have   seen   from   the   literature   study   that   several   commonalities   within   these   plans   exist.   As   mentioned  above,  we  must  make  sure  that  facilities  as  well  as  experimenters  are  attracted  to  join   and  make  use  of  the  future  federation.  In  order  to  do  so,  we  must  present  enough  benefits  for  the   stakeholders  (experimenters  and  facilities  first)  to  make  sure  that  the  federation  has  an  opportunity   to  fit  within  their  individual  sustainability  plans.      

(16)

3

Federation  stakeholders  

Before  defining  the  business  scenarios  and  analysing  their  value  networks,  the  exercise  of  identifying   the   stakeholders   involved   and   their   relationships   is   required.   Within   this   project,   we   define   a   stakeholder   as   any   entity   whose   activity   is   currently   or   potentially   related   to   the   federation   in   a   direct  or  indirect  manner  and,  as  such,  can  derive  benefits  from  the  existence  of  such  a  federation   (with  or  without  cost).    

As   we   consider   a   federation   of   facilities   for   Future   Internet   (FI)   experimentation,   the   benefits   expected   are   not   only   related   to   business   opportunities   derived   from   making   experiments.   The   outcomes  of  FI  experimentation  have  also  a  potential  social  or  cultural  dimension.      

The   federation   is   at   the   very   centre   of   the   FIRE   ecosystem.   The   federation   is   established   to   make   experimentation  across  facilities  easier.  The  main  stakeholders  within  the  federation  are  therefore   the  experimenters,  facility  providers  and  the  federator,  who  facilitates  their  relationship  as  can  be   seen  in  Figure  2.    

Many  other  stakeholders  are  active  in  the  same  ecosystem.  These  can  be  split  in  4  categories:  end   users,  policy  makers  and  funding  bodies,  suppliers  and  research  initiatives.    

 

 

Figure  2:  Fed4FIRE  landscape  

Experimenters Facility   providers Federator Facilitates   relationship Demand   resources  &   services Provide   resources &  services End-­‐users Retrieves   value Provides   funding Retrieve   value Provide   requirements  &   feedback Testbed  software developers Infrastructure  &   service  suppliers Provide   infrastructure   and  services Provide   software Research   initiatives Exchange   information Policy  makers   Funding  bodies

Support  &  enforces  

(17)

The  stakeholders  identified  in  the  following  subsections  match  roles  inside  and  around  the  current   and   future   federation.   A   role   can   be   played   by   different   actors   (or   stakeholders).   For   example,   a   software   company   providing   IT   services   to   a   facility   can   also   become   an   experimenter.   A   facility   provider   can   also   provide   hardware   resources   to   another   facility   owner.   The   fact   that   a   certain   stakeholder  plays  several  roles  is  only  relevant  for  that  particular  stakeholder  and  its  own  interests   but  can  be  discarded  in  a  general  analysis  of  the  Fed4FIRE  landscape.    It  will  still  be  important  in  the   analysis  of  the  future  business  scenarios.  

3.1

Main  stakeholders  

There   are   three   main   stakeholder   types   in   Fed4FIRE:   experimenters,   facility   providers   and   the   federator.   These   are   classed   as   the   main   ones   because   they   are   the   primary   participants   in   a   federation  –  it  would  be  difficult  (though  not  impossible)  for  a  federation  to  operate  without  all  of   these  three  stakeholder  types.  

3.1.1 Experimenter  

Experimenters   are   the   players   that   want   to   use   the   FI   experimentation   facilities   for   their   research   and  development  work.  They  have  a  demand  for  experimentation  resources  for  differing  objectives:    

o Academic:  universities  or  research  centres  undertaking  long(er)  term  research  for  largely   computer  science  endeavours.  They  are  typically  funded  by  research  grants,  long  term   regional   research   projects   or   EC   funded   projects.   The   outcome   is   typically   exploited   through   publications   but   there   is   also   a   tendency   towards   generating   IPR   for   further   commercial  exploitation.  

o Industry:  commercial  companies,  including  SMEs,  testing  systems  for  specific  operational   scenarios  or  compliance.  These  activities  are  typically  funded  directly  by  the  company  or   by   government   agencies   for   economic   development.   The   outcome   is   usually   owned   entirely  by  the  company  and  exploited  for  innovation  in  products  and  services.  

o Academic/industrial   partnerships:   universities   or   research   centres   undertaking   short/medium   term   applied   research   with   industry   for   the   purpose   of   knowledge   transfer  and  knowledge  creation.  This  could  be  funded  by  direct  commercial  investment,   or   via   joint   research   projects   at   national   or   European   scale.   The   outcome   is   typically   exploited  through  licensed  IPR  in  new  products  or  transferred  to  spin-­‐off  companies.   The   main   benefit   for   experimenters   is   the   ability   to   experiment.   This   is   already   provided   by   the   facilities,   but   a   federation   of   facilities   provides   much   greater   scope   and   flexibility   for   the   experimenter:  the  federation  of  heterogeneous  facilities  brings  the  possibility  to  carry  out  large  scale   experiments   in   a   multi-­‐technology   and   multi-­‐vendor   environment.   Moreover,   experimenters   can   benefit  from  services  offered  by  the  federation,  such  as  operational  support  and  SLA  guarantees.     Experimenters  may  or  may  not  be  charged  for  the  use  of  the  experimentation  facilities  and  related   services.  This  will  mostly  depend  on  the  experimenter  profile  and  on  whether  the  facilities  involved   in  the  experiment  are  commercially  exploited  or  not.  

         

(18)

3.1.2 Facility  provider  

These   are   the   owners,   operators   and   maintainers   of   experimentation   facilities1  who   offer   facility   services   and   experimentation   resources   to   experimenters.   We   find   two   major   communities   within   facility  providers  (in  line  with  the  activities  of  FIRE).    

1. Infrastructure  facilities:  experimentation  facilities  that  support  the  researchers  in  the  fields  of   fixed  and  wireless  networking,  sensor  networks,  computing  and  storage,    etc.    

2. Service   and   application   facilities:   experimentation   facilities   that   support   researchers   in   the   field  of  service  platforms,  IMS,  cloud  services,  Internet  of  Things,  etc.      

The   main   benefits   a   federation   brings   to   facility   providers   is   the   possibility   to   improve   the   attractiveness  to  the  facility  by  embedding  it  into  a  broader  community  (e.g.  by  the  use  of  common   interfaces   and   best   practices),   increasing   the   usage   of   the   facility   and   enhancing   its   reputation.   Infrastructure  providers  can  also  have  access  to  a  range  of  common  tools,  frameworks  and  libraries   that  reduce  operational  costs  in  terms  of  maintenance  and  improvements  of  the  facility.  Moreover,   SLA   agreements   may   help   facility   providers   protect   their   infrastructure   against   potential   abuse,   misuse  or  damages  introduced  by  experimenters  by  establishing  a  trust  framework  including  rights   and  obligations  of  all  parties  involved  in  an  experiment.  

3.1.3 Federator  

The  federator  is  a  body,  which  enables  federation  to  happen  between  the  stakeholders,  i.e.  to  enable   them  to  communicate,  understand  each  other  and  cooperate  with  each  other  to  mutual  benefit.  The   federator  may  have  a  number  of  different  functions  (these  are  dependent  on  the  business  scenario),   but  all  the  federator’s  functions  contribute  to  the  goal  of  enabling  federation.  

The   federator   is   distinct   from   the   other   two   main   stakeholders,   the   experimenter   and   the   facility   provider.   The   experimenter   behaves   as   a   consumer,   and   a   facility   provider   behaves   as   a   supplier,   while  the  federator  enables  them  to  talk  to  each  other  and  others  of  their  kind.  

The  federator  might  also  play  the  role  of  business  facilitator  and  foster  relationships  within  a  broader   reach  of  facility  providers  and  experimenters  by  bringing  market  knowledge  allowing  better  business   opportunities.    

We  assert  that  sustainability  work  in  Fed4FIRE  incorporates  the  role  of  the  federator2.  The  federator   enables  the  federation  to  operate,  and  the  federator’s  survival  depends  on  successful  operation  of   the  federation.  To  achieve  this,  not  only  must  the  federator  make  it  possible  for  the  federation  to   operate,  but  it  must  also  determine  clear  benefits  /  value  for  the  other  main  stakeholders.  

                                                                                                                         

1  Facilities   bringing   their   resources   to   the   federation   can   be   individual   facilities   but   also   facilities   that   group   several  facilities  assembled  and  operating  under  a  common  framework.  In  the  latter  case,  the  facility  would  be   a  federated  entity  joining  a  higher  level  federation.  It  can  also  happen  that  within  this  federated  facility,  only   some   of   the   facilities   are   represented   in   the   future   federation.   This   is   the   case   of   BonFIRE,   for   example,   in   Fed4FIRE.    

2  The  Federation  Authority  (FFA)  (Task  8.2  of  Fed4FIRE  project)  is  a  good  candidate  for  the  role  of  federator.  It   is  a  body  in  charge  of  determining  and  possibly  operating  processes,  conventions  &  policies  to  carry  out  the   sustainable   operation   of   the   federation   after   Fed4FIRE.   Thus,   the   commitments   of   all   involved   parties   are   defined  and  ruled  by  this  entity.  The  FFA  is  a  guarantee  for  the  overall  governance  of  the  federation  and  is  thus   essential  not  only  for  the  sustainability  but  also  for  the  operational  aspects.  All  stakeholders  participating  in  the   federation  must  accept  this  authority  and  its  decisions  since  this  will  constitute  the  reference  framework  for   the  operation  of  the  federation.    

(19)

3.2

Other  stakeholders  

Four   other   stakeholder   types   defined   in   Fed4FIRE:   end   users,   policy   makers   and   funding   bodies,   suppliers  and  other  research  initiatives.  They  will  play  a  role  in  the  overall  value  network,  but  are  not   core  to  the  federation  itself.  

3.2.1 End  users  

End  users  are  the  potential  target  users  of  the  experiment  object  and  thus,  in  the  longer  term,  they   are  the  most  benefited  players  by  the  federation  and  its  activity.  End  users  can  be  citizens,  residential   or  business  users  who  will  benefit  from  the  experiment  outcomes  once  they  are  consolidated  and   ready   to   be   operational   in   a   production   environment.   These   business   users   such   as   SMEs   or   big   corporate   companies   might   become   an   important   stakeholder   driving   demand   for   future   experimentation.  As  they  can  benefit  from  the  experimentation  services  offered  by  the  federation,   they  might  represent  an  important  revenue  stream  for  the  federation  (through  the  experimenters).   Depending  on  the  case,  end  users  might  also  participate  in  experiments.  End  users  collaborating  in  an   experiment  are  early  testers  of  innovative  solutions  and  their  participation  will  be  eased  as  much  as   possible  by  the  federation.    Their  affiliation  may  or  may  not  be  the  same  as  the  experimenter’s  and,   depending   on   the   nature   of   this   relationship,   this   kind   of   end-­‐user/acceptance   testing   might   also   constitute  a  service  provided  for  the  experimenter  by  a  third  party  (delegated  end-­‐user  testing).   3.2.2 Policy  makers  and  funding  bodies  

Fed4FIRE  will  allow  large-­‐scale  multi-­‐technological  experiments  in  a  multi-­‐vendor  environment.  The   outcomes  of  the  experimentation  carried  out  across  the  federation  will  guide  and  support  European   policy  decision  makers  by  contributing  to  the  observation  and  analysis  of  the  scientific,  technical  and   technological   trends   and   impact.   This   Technology   Watch   dimension   of   Fed4FIRE   will   help   strategic   decision  making  by  supporting:    

• The  anticipation  of  technological,  social  and  commercial  changes   • The  identification  of  stakeholders  and  players  

• The  elaboration  of  strategic  plans  

As   far   as   funding   bodies   are   concerned,   the   European   Commission   is   the   main   player   as   far   as   Fed4FIRE  is  concerned,  since  it  provides  funds  for  Fed4FIRE  project  and  many  other  FIRE  activities.   Other  funding  bodies  for  experimentation  and  infrastructure  investment  can  be  at  national,  regional   or  local  levels.    

3.2.3 Suppliers  

Two   types   of   suppliers   have   been   defined:   developers   of   facility   software,   and   suppliers   of   infrastructure  and  services.  Both  are  discussed  in  the  following  paragraphs.  They  are  supporting  the   federation  through  the  facility  providers.    

Developers  of  facility  software  (tools)  

Software   developers   will   provide   tools   to   operate   and   monitor   the   facilities,   supporting   the   experimentation  lifecycle  process.  The  tools  to  be  used  can  be  community  open  source  tools  or  other   software  provided  by  system  integrators  or  any  software  developer  (e.g.  an  SME  or  even  a  facility   provider).  

The  main  interest  for  software  developers  is  related  to  both  revenue  generation  and  the  stimulation   for  innovation  by  dealing  with  such  heterogeneous  environments  based  on  advanced  technologies.    

(20)

Suppliers  of  infrastructure  and  services  

This   category   includes   network   equipment   manufacturers   developing   and   providing   networking   devices,   sensor   manufacturers,   IT   equipment,   etc.   to   the   facilities.   These   providers   must   create   products  that  conform  to  standardized  protocols,  function  under  heavy  load  scenarios,  and  perform   reliably  under  a  broad  range  of  conditions.  The  federation  provides  a  unique  opportunity  for  them  to   evaluate   their   products   in   a   heterogeneous   environment   that   anticipates   technological   trends.3   Besides,  manufacturers  can  leverage  from  such  a  complex  environment  to  increase  their  expertise   and  reduce  test  cycle  time,  thanks  to  the  feedback  provided  by  experiments  and  facility  providers.     Service  suppliers  such  as  commercial  internet  providers  (telecom  operators)  or  developers  of  general   purpose  tools  (Microsoft,  Apple,  Google,  etc.)  can  also  be  included  under  this  role.  

GÉANT,   which   is   the   pan-­‐European   research   and   education   network   that   interconnects   Europe’s   National  Research  and  Education  Networks  (NRENs)  is  also  included  in  this  category.  The  federation   will  contribute  to  leveraging  this  investment  and  will  provide  valuable  requirements  and  feedback  for   further  improvements  identified.  

3.2.4 Research  initiatives    

Research   initiatives   are   other   projects   and   research   activities   the   federation   interacts   with.   AmpliFIRE,  XiFi,  BonFIRE  are  examples  of  these  initiatives  as  described  in  section  1.2.  

The   federator   will   exchange   information   with   existing   projects   and   research   initiatives.   This   will   create  synergies  and  contribute  to  develop  a  harmonised  FIRE  Vision  in  relation  to  transition  towards   Horizon  2020.    

 

                                                                                                                         

3  In   case   new   hardware   is   developed   and   early   performance   testing   is   executed   making   use   of   the   experimentation  services  offered  by  the  facilities,  we  can  also  consider  them  as  experimenters.  

(21)

4

Potential  services  offered  by  the  federator  

The   federator   provides   benefits   to   its   main   stakeholders,   experimenters   and   experimentation   facilities.  These  benefits  are  the  result  of  a  set  of  services  provided  by  the  federator  to  each  of  them.   Sections   4.1   and   4.2   enumerate   the   services   that   can   be   offered   by   the   federator.   Services   are   categorized   based   on   two   criteria:   the   user   of   the   service   (experimenters   and   experimentation   facilities)  and  the  importance  of  the  service  (core  and  supplementary  services).  

Core  services  are  considered  as  an  expected  amenity  by  the  end  users.  Additional  or  supplementary   services  are  considered  as  nice  to  have.    

The   federator   focuses   on   the   provisioning   of   the   core   services   but   could   also   implement   certain   supplementary  services.  It  is  key  to  understand  the  benefits  of  a  service  and  to  understand  how  the   provisioning  of  a  service  will  contribute  to  the  cost  of  a  running  federation.  Some  services  may  have  a   large  benefit  but  only  cost  a  little  to  provision  while  for  others  the  opposite  may  be  true.    

A  goal  of  this  deliverable  is  to  identify,  classify  and  describe  the  possible  services.  The  next  step  in   this  process  is  to  evaluate  the  value  of  these  services  in  a  cost-­‐benefit  analysis.  To  shed  light  on  the   costs  of  a  service  a  lightweight  and  easy-­‐to-­‐use  cost  accounting  template  is  used,  which  is  presented   in  section  4.2.  This  template  will  be  used  during  the  project  to  estimate  the  cost  of  a  service.  Some   first  results  have  been  gathered  which  are  presented  in  Appendix  A.  As  quantification  of  the  value  of   a   service   is   much   harder   and   may   often   provide   unreliable   results,   a   qualitative   approach   will   be   pursued  during  the  project.  

4.1

Potential  services  offered  to  the  experimenter  

This  section  lists  the  services  that  could  be  offered  by  a  federator  to  experimenters).  A  distinction  is   made  between  core  services  (the  main  task  to  execute)  and  supplementary  services  (nice  to  haves).   Table  2  gives  a  high  level  overview  of  the  services.  As  these  services  themselves  are  consisting  of  sub-­‐ processes   and   activities,   a   more   detailed   description   follows   in   the   upcoming   subsections   4.1.1   to   4.1.5.    

(22)

Table  2:  List  of  potential  services  offered  to  the  experimenter   To  e xp er im en te rs   Cor e   se rv ic es  

The  ability  to  experiment  across  experimentation  facilities  

The  federation  of  heterogeneous  facilities  brings  the  possibility  to  carry  out  large  scale   experiments  in  a  multi-­‐technology  and  multi-­‐vendor  environment.  The  ability  to   experiment  can  include  following  activities  such  as  making  a  platform  available,   authentication  and  authorization,  resources  discovery  and  reservation,  experiment   configuration  and  measurements.  This  is  the  core  service  of  the  every  testbed  facility   to  attract  experimenters.  

Central  portal  

A  centrally  managed  point  of  information  should  be  set  up,  in  order  to  inform  the   experimenter  about  the  federation,  the  different  facilities  joined,  and  services  offered.   This  point  of  information  can  be  extended  with  additional  features  relating  to  the   experiment  lifecycle  such  as  authentication,  resource  reservation,  etc.  

Su pp lem en tar y   ser vi ces   Experimenter  training  

The  federator  offers  experimenter  training  via  training  sessions  and  general  support.   The  federation  will  thereby  increase  awareness  and  reduce  the  effort  and  time   required  to  run  experiments  and  reduce  the  risk  of  failure  due  to  misconfiguration  of   facilities.  

Shared  support  services  

The  federator  offers  experimenters  a  central  contact  point  for  experiment  support  to   deal  with  experimenter  problems  and  to  help  experimenters  with  designing  

experiments.  These  include  providing  help  about  services,  providing  information  about   facility  capabilities,  organizing  administrative  functions  dealing  with  access  rights,  etc.   This  service  includes  activities  such  as  Incident  and  service  request  management,   problem  management  and  advice    

SLA  guarantees  

The  experimenters  have  access  to  specifications,  tools  and  services  for  SLAs  that  can   support  the  formal  definition  of  the  relationship  between  facility  providers  and  the   experimenters  as  a  mechanism  to  increase  trust  in  the  facilities  by  encoding  security   and  dependability  commitments  and  ensuring  the  level  of  Quality  of  Service  is   maintained  to  an  acceptable  level.  This  service  can  include  activities  such  as  Service   Level  Management  and  Operational  Level  Agreements  (SLAs,  OLAs).  

 

In  the  next  subsections  the  services  offered  to  experimenters  are  specified  in  terms  of  processes  and   activities:  ability  to  experiment,  experimenter  training,  shared  support  services  and  SLA  guarantees.   4.1.1 The  ability  to  experiment  

The  federation  of  heterogeneous  facilities  brings  the  possibility  to  carry  out  large  scale  experiments   in   a   multi-­‐technology   and   multi-­‐vendor   environment.   Several   sub-­‐processes   and   activities   can   be   considered,  some  with  more  priority  than  others,  which  are  presented  in  Table  3.  

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...

Related subjects :