[sami] Bringing new work into the IETF

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yingjie,

I trimmed the CC: list to the sami mailing list.
Those who are interested in the sami discussion can join the sami list
and find this discussion in the sami archive.

So far, I think your proposal is not being accepted by the IETF
because it is too general and too abstract.
You are still trying to figure out what problem you want to solve.

To make VM migration standardization a viable problem to work on, you
probably need to get vendors and operators to all agree on complete
standardization for their various technologies - virtualization,
TCP/IP stacks, network management protocols, and so on. 
I think you are very unlikely to ever achieve that because vendors
want to continue to enhance their solutions versus their competitors.
Standardization is not appropriate to solve every problem. 

Most enterprises/providers will choose a specific virtualization
solution, such as VMware.
How VM migration is done depends a great deal on the virtualization
solution in use.
Hypervisors have not been standardized because the companies that
provide virtualization solutions gain competitive advantage from their
hypervisor capabilities. They don't necessarily want to standardize
their hypervisors across vendors.

Most enterprises/providers will choose a specific storage solution,
such as EMC or NetApp.
How VM migration is done depends a great deal on the storage solution
in use.
Storage devices usually use standards, but have not been completely
standardized because the companies that provide storage solutions gain
competitive advantage from their storage solution enhancements. They
don't want to totally standardize storage across vendors.

Most enterprises/providers will choose specific equipment vendors to
deploy in their networks.
Those choices often have to do with the proprietary enhancements
offered by different vendors.
The vendors have no desire to all offer identical products and
identical features.
How VM migration is done depends a great deal on the networking
equipment in use.
IP/TCP stacks have not been totally standardized because the companies
that provide networking equipment gain competitive advantage from
their equipment's enhanced capabilities. They don't want to totally
standardize their equipment across vendors.

Most enterprises/providers will choose specific equipment to deploy in
their networks.
Those choices often have to do with the proprietary solutions to
manage the chosen equipment.
The vendors have no desire to all offer identical management features.
How a migration is done depends a great deal on the networking
management tools in use.
CLIs and proprietary MIB modules and other management interfaces have
not been totally standardized because the companies that provide these
tools gain competitive advantage from their management products'
enhanced capabilities. They don't want to totally standardize their
management interfaces.

To standardize VM migration across all the VM implementations, the
TCP/IP implementations, the storage implementations, the routing
implementations, the security implementations, the application
implementations, the network management implementations, and the
enterprise-specific deployment choices, is like "boiling the ocean".
Not a very achieveable goal.

The IETF does **engineering**.
You would do much better to focus your energy on a **small** problem,
solvable by standardization, that can be turned into an engineering
project appropriate to the IETF. 

For example, you might focus on developing a standard DHCP attribute
or a standard netconf/YANG module for some aspect of virtual host
configuration that could be reasonably standardized across
virtualization platforms and equipment vendors. Each standardization
of a small piece of Internet-related VM configuration could help
standardize VM migration in the long run. And that would be
engineering work appropriate to the IETF. 

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
[e-mail]
[phone] (cell)
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yingjie Gu(yingjie) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:03 AM
> To: 'So, Ning'; 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> Cc: 'Wesley Eddy'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 
> [e-mail]; 'David Harrington'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [sami] Welcome to SAMI and something you may 
> like to know.
> 
> Ning,
> 
> When we talked at Quebec, I remembered that you have 
> impressive understanding on VM migration requirements 
> in/between subnets. Hope you can share your use cases from 
> provider's perspective.
> I have talked with two providers in detail, and they both see 
> the strong requirements for state migration as VM migrates. 
> Perhaps we need to document provider's requirements for 
> people's reference. I am working with providers on this 
> document to introduce use cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Gu Yingjie
> 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: So, Ning [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 发送时间: 2011年8月17日 乐乐21:59
> 收件人: Yingjie Gu(yingjie); 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> 抄送: 'Wesley Eddy'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 
> [e-mail]; 'David Harrington'; [e-mail]
> 主题: RE: [sami] Welcome to SAMI and something you may like to know.
> 
> Yingjie,
> 
> You might want to consider limiting the scope to problem 
> definition and provider requirements collection first.  I 
> know a lot of work has gone into documenting what is 
> available today.  However, the provider requirements in this 
> area is still rather thin.   For example, the requirements 
> for optimization-based migration can be quite different from 
> failure restoration-based migration.  The type of services 
> the VMs are supporting can also impact the migration 
> requirements, thus impacting the solutions.  Defining 
> different types of VM migration and the associated 
> requirements should be a higher priority, in my opinion. 
> 
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Ning So
> Verizon Corporate Technology
> (office) 972-729-7905
> (Cell) 972-955-0914
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:59 AM
> To: 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> Cc: 'Wesley Eddy'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 
> [e-mail]; 'David Harrington'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [sami] Welcome to SAMI and something you may 
> like to know.
> 
> The following is a scope suggested by Dr. Fan.
> 
> " According to the current implementation,VM migration is 
> scoped in a layer
> 2 network with shared storage.Key factors that decide whether 
> hot migration is successful includes,from the network's side, 
> bandwith and delay.Even the migration happens between two 
> sites,it may succeed if the bandwidth is wide enough and the 
> delay is small enough.
>  
> So,pehhaps we can define the scope as such:A layer 2 subnet 
> with good enough performance which makes the hot migration 
> successful."
> 
> What is your opinion on this scope?
> 
> Best Regards
> Gu Yingjie
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2011年8月12日 乐乐0:14
> 收件人: Yingjie Gu(yingjie); 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> 抄送: 'Wesley Eddy'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; [e-mail]; 
> 'David Harrington'; [e-mail]
> 主题: RE: [sami] Welcome to SAMI and something you may like to know.
> 
> I thought at the barBOF that the next step is to identify 
> some use cases. It will be very beneficial to accelerate the 
> progress by identifying some states (or conditions) which 
> today's firewall or security devices can use to continue the 
> proper function. 
> 
> 
> Linda
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:07 AM
> > To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> > Cc: 'Wesley Eddy'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; [e-mail]; 'David 
> > Harrington'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [sami] Welcome to SAMI and something you may 
> like to know.
> > 
> > Hi Juergen,
> > 
> > I accept your suggestion. I will be more careful with my words.
> > 
> > We don't need yet more high level discussion on whether 
> it's useful or 
> > not.
> > 
> > Let's first figure out the context: scope, use cases and so on.
> > 
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > Gu Yingjie
> > 
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
> > Juergen
> > Schoenwaelder
> > 发送时间: 2011年8月11日 乐乐15:41
> > 收件人: Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
> > 抄送: 'Wesley Eddy'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 
> [e-mail]; 'David 
> > Harrington'; [e-mail]
> > 主题: Re: [sami] Welcome to SAMI and something you may like to
know.
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 02:04:14PM +0800, Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
wrote:
> > 
> > > Attendees agree that state migration is useful. What we need to
do
> > next is
> > > to narrow down the scope, e.g. state migration within the same 
> > > Administration domain or between domains, and collect the 
> use cases
> > in
> > that
> > > scope. Then we need to figure out what kind of state need to be
> > migrated
> > in
> > > the narrow scope, what's the common representation of the
states, 
> > > and,
> > if
> > we
> > > go that far, the potential solutions for state migration.
> > 
> > For me, it is crucial to first define the scope before I can agree

> > whether state migration is a useful concept or not. 
> Depending on the 
> > timing and the addressing/routing issues, other mechanisms might
be 
> > more appropriate.
> > 
> > Bottom line: Be careful with general statements like 
> "Attendees agree 
> > that state migration is useful." before we even agree on 
> the context.
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen,
Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > sami mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sami mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sami mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami
> 
>