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

[Steven Blake <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 06:19 -0800, Thomas Narten wrote:

> > It may be very helpful to bring one or more of these
> > proprietary VM migration approaches to IETF for consideration
> > for standardization, if that is appropriate.
> 
> Well, let's start with this as a premise. Sure, in the utopia of open
> standards everwhere, having all this stuff standardized would be
> great.
> 
> But let's be realistic. Are any of the vendors/implementors of these
> systems coming to the IETF saying they want or need a standard? (If
> so, I must have missed this.)
> 
> If the market heavyweights are not indicating that they will
> participate and/or implement such a standard, would anything the IETF
> does in this space be relevant? (Based on experience, I fear the
> answer is a very clear "no".)
> 
> Finally, do we see operators who use the existing systems coming to
> the IETF saying they want open standards here? So far, the silence has
> been deafening so far...
> 
> > Sure, we'll update the draft to articulate these requirements.
> 
> Frankly, until and unless the questions above can be answered in a
> more positive manner, IMO there is little point in spending any cycles
> in this area, other than getting positive answers to the questions.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

Several system vendors (myself included) stood up in Taipei and said
"one encapsulation, please".  If IETF can facilitate industry
convergence on a small set of NVO3 encapsulations (preferably one), that
would be a big win for Ethernet switch vendors.


Regards,

/////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven Blake       [e-mail]
Extreme Networks              [phone]