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

["ram krishnan" <[e-mail]>]

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 < <mailto:[e-mail]> [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/> 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/> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

> 

> e-mail:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> Tel:    [phone]

> Mobile: [phone]

> ----------------------------------

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Nfvrg mailing list

>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>  <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg

 

_______________________________________________

Nfvrg mailing list

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

 <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg