Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

	Another way of looking at it is a hypervisor is really an operating system distribution.  Many of the hypervisors out there have the network "switch" as a separate process (actually I believe all of them do).  So, if we are saying that networking intel doesn't belong in an OS distribution, that is a departure from current thinking :)

	Chris

On 20Jan2012, at 15.31, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On 01/20/2012 02:18 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>> An interesting thing to note is that the more the functionality you
>> put in the hypervisor, the more you stress the single point of failure
>> in the virtualized system.
> 
> Well, there are a few ways to look at it.  For example,
> the fewer components you've got the larger the mean time
> between failures.  But aside from that it's been a
> general rule of thumb that you want to minimize the
> impact of failed components on non-failed components
> (the fate sharing principle).
> 
> At any rate the hypervisor (at least the ones with which
> I'm familiar) basically *are* network devices - they
> function as a switch, or even a NAT.  If you're going to
> suggest that they can't be used to terminate control plane
> sessions I hope there's a more compelling reason for it
> than what has been offered so far.
> 
> Melinda
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc

--  
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf