Re: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the management different

Barbara Martini <> Mon, 26 May 2014 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42001A0129 for <>; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.645
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MSUmVtMI-_ef for <>; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAB41A014C for <>; Mon, 26 May 2014 05:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([] verified) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.15) with ESMTP id 92526278; Mon, 26 May 2014 14:38:18 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 14:38:24 +0200
From: Barbara Martini <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; it; rv: Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:,, "Songhaibin (A)" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the management different
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "NFV \(Network Function Virtualization\) Configuration and Modeling" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:38:25 -0000

Hi Haibin, Georgios,

I do agree with you. Also, I think that the fact we can have agile 
runtime management and disposal of virtual network functions provide the 
capability of performing much more effective optimizations while 
addressing different management targets. For instance, the virtual 
network functions can be initially disposed according to a specified 
optimization targets, then easily rearranged based on changing 
conditions or modified targets. The optimization targets may be for 
example the minimization of used physical server hosting virtual network 
functions or, on the contrary, the balancing of used physical servers.

Moreover, the instances of virtual network function can be dynamically 
scaled up/down in a agile way in order to assure the required 
capabilities while avoiding overprovisioning. Finally, in combination 
with software-defined networking the traffic can be dynamically steered 
across virtual network functions on per-service basis or even on 
per-tenant basis thanks to high level of programmability of network nodes.

Best regards,


Il 26/05/2014 7.17, ha scritto:
> Hi Haibin,
> Yes I agree with you!
> In particular, the dynamic lifecycle management of the virtual network functions (e.g., deploy, provision, operation and runtime management, disposal)  is very different from the (almost) static configuration of conventional network appliances.
> Best regards,
> Georgios
> ________________________________________
> Van: NFVCON [] namens Songhaibin (A) []
> Verzonden: vrijdag 23 mei 2014 5:02
> Aan:
> Onderwerp: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the management    different
> Hi guys,
> I'm thinking the virtualization of network functions makes the management different from the conventional network appliances, for example, when compared with hard appliances, virtual network functions are easy to install/update/delete, or migrate from one place to another (for something like virtual residential gateway). And virtual network functions can also be open to the network function consumers. What are other differences in your opinion?
> Best Regards!
> -Haibin
> _______________________________________________
> NFVCON mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> NFVCON mailing list