Re: [Nfvrg] Call for adoption of draft-natarajan-nfvrg-containers-for-nfv

[Roberto Riggio <[e-mail]>]

I was thinking about frameworks like dockyard. There are many other tools
(more or less complex)
to manage containers without going to full blown VIMs like openstack.
However what is missing is
a Lightweight MANO to replace platforms like OPNFV etc. il the low-end side
of the spectrum. We
are actually working on this but it is still very far from a public release.

R.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:23 PM, ram krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Roberto,
>
>
>
> Valid point. Do you have any specific examples in mind?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramki
>
>
>
> *From:* Roberto Riggio [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 6, 2017 12:59 PM
> *To:* ram krishnan <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Azhar Sayeed <[e-mail]>om>; Diego R. Lopez <
> [e-mail]>gt;; [e-mail]
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Nfvrg] Call for adoption of draft-natarajan-nfvrg-
> containers-for-nfv
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I was wondering if the lightweight NFV performance comparison should also
> be extended
>
> to the rest of the stack. For example openstack + opnfv could be very
> heavyweight while
>
> other management platforms for containers (if they exists) could be
> executed on low
>
> power platforms (which could make sense in some deployments).
>
>
>
> R.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:47 PM, ram krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Azhar,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments and the interest. The rationale behind adoption is
> we see strong community interest in the topic and have reasonable content
> in the document. We still have more steps like last call before the RFC
> publication and are expecting good community contribution to the document
> prior to that.
>
>
>
> For the performance comparisons, we didn't use HW acceleration techniques
> since they are application and deployment specific; for example, a small
> CPE in an enterprise branch may never use any hardware acceleration because
> of the low throughput requirements. Any specific suggestions including
> references in this area are most welcome.
>
>
>
> Container networking is definitely an interesting topic. We will certainly
> capture the challenges in a mixed Container/OpenStack environment, how
> efforts like Kuryr are attempting to address these and how SR-IOV plays out
> in this scenario. Any other suggestions are welcome.
>
>
>
> Can you please elaborate more on the single threading support?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramki
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nfvrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Azhar Sayeed
> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 8:11 AM
> To: Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] Call for adoption of draft-natarajan-nfvrg-
> containers-for-nfv
>
>
>
> Hi Diego and Authors..
>
>
>
> Can you clarify if any data path acceleration techniques were used to
> measure throughput between guest and host OS. If not what is the usefulness
> of that metric - If the idea is to show raw comparisons then fine - if the
> idea is to show how bad the VMs are when compared to Unikernel and
> containers then you have achieved it it well..
>
>
>
> The main issues with Unikernels or containers for NFV are not discussed in
> depth - Issues such as single threading support, IP address assignment and
> container networking need further exploration and study. Need at least
> statements in the document that those are for further study.
>
>
>
> So perhaps I am missing the point of adoption of this draft - may be the
> objectives can be clarified.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Azhar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Diego R. Lopez <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> >
>
> > This first message of the new year is to launch a two-week adoption call
> for draft-natarajan-nfvrg-containers-for-nfv. Ramki and I believe the
> document is mature enough to consider its adoption, once it has evolved
> from an analysis of container technology into a more comprehensive
> discussion of lightweight technologies in NFV.
>
> >
>
> > Please indicate in your comments “support” or “no support” and discuss
> how this draft will contribute to the goals of NFVRG.
>
> >
>
> > The current draft is available at:
>
> >
>
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-natarajan-nfvrg-
> containers-for-nfv/
>
> >
>
> > Be goode,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>
> >
>
> > Dr Diego R. Lopez
>
> > Telefonica I+D
>
> > http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
>
> >
>
> > e-mail: [e-mail]
>
> > Tel:    [phone] <+34%20913%2012%2090%2041>
>
> > Mobile: [phone] <+34%20682%2005%2010%2091>
>
> > ----------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Nfvrg mailing list
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Nfvrg mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfvrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Roberto Riggio, Ph.D.
>
> CREATE-NET
>
> Chief Scientist
>
> Future Networks (FuN)
>
> Via alla Cascata 56/D - 38123 Povo Trento (Italy)
>
> e-mail: [e-mail] <- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
>
> office: ([phone]
>
> Fax: [phone]
>
> mobile: [phone]
>
> skype: hamvil
>
> homepage: http://www.robertoriggio.net/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Riggio, Ph.D.
CREATE-NET
Chief Scientist
Future Networks (FuN)
Via alla Cascata 56/D - 38123 Povo Trento (Italy)
e-mail: [e-mail] <- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
office: ([phone]
Fax: [phone]
mobile: [phone]
skype: hamvil
homepage: http://www.robertoriggio.net/
--------------------------------------------------------