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

Hi Georgios,

Thank you for the reply. Right, that's why we target the virtualization characteristics of VNF. Implementation of virtual network functions gradually get deployed in the real world. If you have multiple vendors and consumers for the VNF, you need a standard protocol for this platform. And we will explain them more in a use case draft for NFV configuration.

Best Regards!
-Haibin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: karagian@cs.utwente.nl [mailto:karagian@cs.utwente.nl]
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 1:17 PM
> To: Songhaibin (A); nfvcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the
> management different
> 
> 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 [nfvcon-bounces@ietf.org] namens Songhaibin (A)
> [haibin.song@huawei.com]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 23 mei 2014 5:02
> Aan: nfvcon@ietf.org
> 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvcon