Re: [sami] Trying to figure out where we are

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> In previous mail discussion, there are questions on why should VM be
>> migrated.
> 
> I think we should take it as a given that VMs move around. People do
> that today, we all see the value.

Yup.

> 
>> And also, in the side meeting at Quebec, people want to learn the use case
>> from real scenario.
> 
> Yes. looking at specific scenarios allows us to ask the question of
> whether the scenario is realistic and corresponds to what operators
> actual do today (or want to do), or whether it is just a theoretical
> problem (in which case it's very questionable whether the IETF should
> do work.)
> 
>> I guess Yunfei's use case could be an answer to that.
> 
> See my previous posting, I don't understand what use case this is yet.
> 
>> Here are some of the states that I can see on the devices that need to be
>> migrated.
> 
>> 1. States on switches:
>> 1.1  DHCP snooping table on ports;
> 
> How often does DHCP snooping take place in data centers? In other
> words, is this a real problem, or a theoretical one?
> 
>> 1.2  IGMP snooping table on ports;
> 
> I think we need to outline some specific scenarios that describe what
> the problem actually is here. Who is doing snooping, why, and why a VM
> move leaves something not working.
> 
>> 1.3  Dynamic ACL which is created by traffic or authentication;
> 
> A specific scenario  would be helpful here. Both so I can understand
> the details of the problem,  and so we can discuss whether the
> scenario is a real problem in existing datacenters today, or just a
> theoretical problem.
> 
>> 2. States on FW
>> 2.1  TCP Connect States
>> 2.2  Dynamic ACL
> 
> Same as above.
> 
> 
>> 3. States on LB
>> 3.1  Connect States.
>> 3.2  Session States.
> 
> Same as above.
> 
>> 4. States on IPS/IDS.
>> 4.1 Cumulative data
> 
> Same as above.
> 
>> We can think about two scenarios:
>> 1. VM migrate within the subnet under the same FW/LB/IPS. In this case,
>> states also migrate under the same FW/LB/IPS etc.
>> States need to be migrated include 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.
> 
> Before we spend a lot of time on this, we need to establish that there
> are actual real scenarios that correspond to real problems happening
> in data centers today. If a problem is just theoretical, it becomes
> very unclear whether the IETF should do any work (at this time).

Yes.

> 
> I am not interested in discussing solutions, or even the problem in
> much detail, if there is no compelling scenario motivating the
> problems for which solutions are being considred.

My message here is basically content free, I just wanted to support / agree with what Thomas said -- this is fairly unusual, so worth noting...

W

> 
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> sami mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami
>