IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00

Muhammad Durrani <mdurrani@Brocade.com> Wed, 19 March 2014 07:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mdurrani@Brocade.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00B41A04B4 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_28=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vS4AzgY7EMxw for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:7a::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976F91A001C for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000542 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s2J7RYU8029723; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:34 -0700
Received: from hq1wp-exchub01.corp.brocade.com ([144.49.131.13]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1jp99cgt7h-13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:33 -0700
Received: from HQ1WP-EXHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.14) by HQ1WP-EXCHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:31 -0700
Received: from HQ1-EXCH02.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::c92a:772e:befa:c34c]) by HQ1WP-EXHUB01.corp.brocade.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:15 -0700
From: Muhammad Durrani <mdurrani@Brocade.com>
To: Bhavani Parise <bhavani@cisco.com>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:27:14 -0700
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00
Thread-Index: Ac9DQUDG9rb1/MKIRCaB49COb/+HIAAAk1Gw
Message-ID: <06FF377397785A4781BD13272EBF3D58231D89E1D9@HQ1-EXCH02.corp.brocade.com>
References: <2845723087023D4CB5114223779FA9C80178E0CCD3@njfpsrvexg8.research.att.com> <53294119.6040709@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53294119.6040709@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-03-19_03:2014-03-19, 2014-03-19, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1403180207
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/6w6C_UM6Hz3QBdl_ZUXAoKI7bH4
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:27:44 -0000

Hi Bhavani,

- do we need to consider or compare performance with the real/physical network vs. the virtual network
- in 3.2 do we need Virtual Switch

[MD] We do need to provide methodologies to benchmark for three architectures vSwitch/SR-IOV and PCI bypass.
Regarding comparing performance only PCI bypass can be compared with physical world.  Again we are not benchmarking networks here but the virtual appliance and wherever needed comparison will be laid out for both Physical and virtual appliance.

for 3.2 how about load balancers, firewalls - do we need to consider, what kind of DPI
    - firewalls - stateful vs stateless
[MD] Virtual appliance is broader term - it means virtual Load balancer  and firewalls (both state full and stateless)
We won't be suggesting "kind of DPI" - Standard method will be provided to qualify appliance for any type of DPI  

Regards,
Muhammad
-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bhavani Parise
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:03 AM
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00

Al,
    including the WG list also for my comments/Qs for this draft. These are a few things which we can look into including as considerations for this draft.

- also for 3.2 - for VNF itself, do we need location of the VNF - guest VM,separate process, appliance etc
- 
    - what kind of considerations we need to note when testing a Virtual Firewall Function
- how many Tenants can a VNF support?
- for 3.3 - how about VM mobility or VNF mobility itself


thanks,
Bhavani
________________________________________

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email