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

"Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <haibin.song@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nfvcon@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfvcon@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFA31A002F for <nfvcon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vzZR-195f5Zk for <nfvcon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F2C51A002D for <nfvcon@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 02:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BEO89284; Tue, 27 May 2014 09:00:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:00:26 +0100
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:00:54 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.193]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 17:00:50 +0800
From: "Songhaibin (A)" <haibin.song@huawei.com>
To: Barbara Martini <barbara.martini@cnit.it>, "nfvcon@ietf.org" <nfvcon@ietf.org>, "karagian@cs.utwente.nl" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
Thread-Topic: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the management different
Thread-Index: AQHPeN9qa4oNJwE/k0Or+t9R59gXfJtUHFHg
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 09:00:50 +0000
Message-ID: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F650E5B15@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F650E4BD7@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F4F475E49@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl> <538335C0.7090401@cnit.it>
In-Reply-To: <538335C0.7090401@cnit.it>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.49]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfvcon/Ws_yvr3lU7RH9ed_kz0hqQipU-g
Subject: Re: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the management different
X-BeenThere: nfvcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "NFV \(Network Function Virtualization\) Configuration and Modeling" <nfvcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfvcon>, <mailto:nfvcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfvcon/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfvcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfvcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvcon>, <mailto:nfvcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 09:01:12 -0000

Hi Barbara,

Best Regards!
-Haibin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barbara Martini [mailto:barbara.martini@cnit.it]
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 8:38 PM
> To: nfvcon@ietf.org; karagian@cs.utwente.nl; Songhaibin (A)
> Subject: Re: [NFVCON] virtualization of network functions makes the
> management different
> 
> 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.

[Haibin] This example is very interesting. I think we can get some very useful requirements from agile runtime management, especially from the NFV consumer perspective. The policies at least include load-balancing policy, automatic scale-out/in policy, and etc. I'm very interested in the NFV management and orchestration plane north bound interactions with VNF providers and consumers. But in the south-bound to the specific infrastructure devices, the management and orchestration plane has to translate those requirements into detailed configuration commands/protocol interactions that have been supported by the existing devices, which is more about implementation issue IMO.


> 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. 

[Haibin] Fully agree.

>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.
> 
[Haibin] Definitely this kind of combination with SDN is very attractive. One use case that I know is when you add a new VNF instance that's agnostic to the applications, you need to send a command to its neighbor switch, so as to make it split a portion of the traffic to the new VNF instance, based on some policies.


Regards!
-Haibin

> Best regards,
> 
> Barbara
> 
> 
> Il 26/05/2014 7.17, karagian@cs.utwente.nl 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 [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
> > _______________________________________________
> > NFVCON mailing list
> > NFVCON@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvcon