Re: [bmwg] Review of draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-00

"KJ SUN" <> Thu, 18 April 2019 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EF31200EA for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BX7MLStSNJ2w for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A60E612009C for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w24so1008641plp.2 for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to :references:user-agent; bh=lgacy7ur55VAYNyzItYNxPskwZxorcHioAxI9kTjVVI=; b=L6DrRxCaqxub03klq8FEAgu8iPjx9DbswPL1BFYLhoXeGyW+yDaCe1mnokcJWWBVd0 HejQMVKOKtC9IVYU2bg4zucM+M1wVri6xbpc3i3/NvWARCc/qR/Xazlf/Yp0hkbf12Y4 kbIcoOxMI6aKIYm1UG1xV43SpzY1T6Xt4yRtmpyXuPz4f9tu6GS21jHatjA2GY/2j7DQ rhefSeEBAjV1ZUImp5sYp3H9UGQv6zV+mkhXDQaZ550n496oDCBO2gM9AkTXtjKOT69D BnkqvdrAMfYTgqyuWJXbRzdmn6BXokwyDYueyQtoyZzXboJeg7isjrkcnr+fr9yDM1cM klGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:user-agent; bh=lgacy7ur55VAYNyzItYNxPskwZxorcHioAxI9kTjVVI=; b=FVtnRy8N11uiMgSh3sfZ9aknAfaVLH7UjOqHP0xaSt+Y4buoEmM9C5YtDd4JPUMxpP ZTU+Dkinp0fHOEZvo5viwrlWgSx5uoCBlZmS9Kv0rtr9IIe4CACkSmD3LoT8iEJya0ts 3MHCFJcWGYJpk0q8+orsd1wjmVzhBkNAZdDSer0P65pvWnJ250nS796CU30WpEXpkij5 DQrJtd2Gl7a9LsR5IRFewPUnN64FSvE184un+abQhEBlxFZIzshKFrXr7EI/68ESKcYM 1cUnjVn4U10h6eRzxlNwFTXxfMA8wv7NbAvdmZ7vGOKenQXIkZcF1xEsTZdzhg+LT7v2 qiCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVwNu9yGsdF8q3C9f7MxG6OJJR6r3CSYjLAMHV28pU20Sm+yJVg i+Dac7IWI9/y7ZtclMKSsOtQRQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwZ9LjfEhO8wYn5kqybzUTrUo6P+a+4isVey0RyqHg9zDoLzftjMZetazRp61JjqfqelH5zHw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:aa5:: with SMTP id 34mr5366007plp.326.1555585006038; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id z13sm1974881pgc.25.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Apr 2019 03:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_66821676.130518401083"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 19:56:41 +0900
Message-ID: <>
From: "KJ SUN" <>
To: "Luis M. Contreras" <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Mailbird/
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 190417-4, 2019-04-18), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Review of draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:56:51 -0000

Hi Luis,

Thank you very much for your comments. I agree with your conmments

In the next version, I will try to add contents including especially test scenarios and guidelines.

And also I think that analysis should be contained not only advantages of containerized infrastructure but also constraints. I will try to add that part also.

All editorial comments are also helpful for next version of this draft. I will reflect your comments.

Kind regards,

Kyoungjae Sun / K. J. SUN (Ph. D. Student)
Distributed Computing Network laboratory (DCN Lab)
School of Electronic Engineering, Soongsil Univ.
369 Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul.
Tel. +82-2-814-0151
Mobile +82-10-3643-5627
On 2019-04-18 오후 7:39:31, Luis M. Contreras <> wrote:
Dear all,
As committed during IETF#104 Prague meeting, I have performed a review of draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra-00. These are my comments.
/* General comments */
.- I think the draft is a very good starting point for highlighting the differences and implications due to distinct options of virtualization methods. However, as it is written now, the draft only visualizes a number of differences with the VM based approach or alternatives to consider for containers in several aspects (networking, memory, hardware, etc), but it does not provide specific guidance or recommendations about what and how to test and benchmark the containerized case. So, in my opinion, a good path to follow would be to include some guidelines in next versions of the draft.
.- When talking about container solutions (e.g., Docker, Kubernettes) no references/links are included in the draft. Having some references would help readers by pointing out where to look at.
.- As every technological option, containers have some pros and cons. Some pros are provided in the draft (e.g., lightweight virtualization scheme), but no cons are mentioned. Being this a document of the BMWG, I think it would be convenient to highlight also potential cons due to containerization in such a way that it can help the reader to take the proper decision on what is the more appropriate virtualization technology to follow from his/her point of view and needs.
.- Reference [ETSI-TST-009] is mentioned several times in the draft. I think it would be good to make explicit what are the additions that this draft provides with respect to [ETSI-TST-009].
/* Editorial comments */
.- It would be convenient to shift to the right the different bullets along the draft. This would make the draft more readable.
.- In the Abstract: “… will be partially changed by way of resource allocation and network port binding between a physical host and VNFs.” – maybe re-write in this way: “… will be partially changed by the way in which the resource allocation and network port binding between a physical host and VNFs is performed.”
.- the VM based option is sometimes referred as “VM based” and others as “VM-based”. A uniform reference is advised.
.- In section 3.2: “Other deployment models are classified bases on whether …” à “Other deployment models are classified based on whether …”
.- Figure 2 reflects 4 different options. I think it would be good to describe in the title of the figure each of these options (reference to case (a), (b), etc).
Best regards,

Luis M. Contreras [] []
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
_______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list

이 이메일은 Avast 안티바이러스 소프트웨어로 바이러스 검사를 완료했습니다.