Re: [dc] A purpose of the draft /// Re: draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

Hi Richard,

I'll keep this brief:

> See here, some people may be in doubt: Is the existing program can not
> solve your problem?

The answer to that question is missing from the draft, and it should start
with a statement of what the actual problem is.  The actual problem is *not*
virtual machine migration in general (as stated in the draft's Introduction),
as that already works fine over IP based networks (both IPv4 and IPv6).

What work are you advocating that the IETF undertake, and how would that
work improve the current situation for vitual machine migration?

The draft does not contain any answer to that question either.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Bin liu
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:04 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: narten; dc; Bhumip Khasnabish
> Subject: [dc] A purpose of the draft /// Re: draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt
> 
> Greetings David,
> 
> Thank you for your comments and question, it is a good question.
> From your viewpoint, "the interoperability between the different
> vender (or SPs)" is the necessary condition of the "to work for the
> IETF", but I think it is only a sufficient condition of the "to work
> for the IETF", not a necessary condition, for example, do VM migration
> between private desktop system with IPV6 addresses systems is not one
> of the goals of the IETF? Of course yes. Whether or not to agree with
> my viewpoint, seamless VM migration between a variety of computing
> systems (servers, tablet PCs, mobile phone system) is an irreversible
> trend in the future. Do IETF going to miss it?
> 
> So, I am sorry, in my personal viewpoint, your query is debatable.
> 
> See here, some people may be in doubt: Is the existing program can not
> solve your problem?
> 
> Yes, the reasons for defect analysis of existing system can refer to
> my following opinion(you can seach "traditional tunneling gateway" to
> find it in this mail).
> 
> Many thanks for guidance
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Richard Bin Liu
> 
> liu.bin21@zte.com.cn
> Richard.BoHan.liu@gmail.com
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > About VM migration in the draft, we did not demand forcibly between the different vender(or SPs), so
> your concerns may not  exist.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, there's no work for the IETF to do because
> interoperability is not a goal.  What have I missed?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> 
> 
> From: dc-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of liu.bin21 at zte.com.cn
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:57 PM
> To: narten at us.ibm.com; vumip1 at gmail.com
> Cc: dc at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas, thank you for your comments!
> 
> About VM migration in the draft, we did not demand forcibly between
> the different vender(or SPs), so your concerns may not
> exist. As you say, "let's be realistic", our intention is to improve
> the flexibility of VM migration, as well as the breadth
> of applications under the premise of market heavyweights are not
> opposed to it.In order to achieve these goals, analyse possible
> problems, discuss and resolve these problems, such as: VM migration is
> due to a non-public sector energy-efficient needs, rather than to
> public access without interruption, or business needs of the user's
> desktop migration, this demand may exist within a same service
> provider, or you say a same vender with mixed network, for example:
> 
> With the promotion of IPv6 technology, the existing IPv4 networks will
> be more and more IPv6 hosts, these applications driven
> a series of tunnel technologies to provide solutions, such as: 6to4
> tunnel technology, ISATAP tunnel technology, and so on.
> Virtual machine migration technology will also be the basis of these
> network environments,in the transition network using tunneling
> transition technique, the connections between the subnets and the
> backbone network are achieved through the tunneling gateway. In the
> IPv4/IPv6 transition period, a variety of tunnels coexist. The
> establishment of the tunnel varies with different gateways. The
> traditional tunneling gateway only establishes tunnels for
> communication with the same type of gateway, the different types of
> traditional tunneling gateway cannot communicate with each other,
> which cannot meet the requirements of VPN communications in the
> transition period. A multi-tunnel VPN gateway is used to solve the
> problem of establishing the tunnel between the heterogeneous gateways.
> 
> Many thanks for guidance
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bin Liu
> 
> liu.bin21 at zte.com.cn
> Richard.BoHan.liu at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> dc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc