Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions.

Totally agree. I do suggest to involve some Internet service operator, like Google, baidu (who may be the potential SAMI users) in the discussion if possible, which'll convince IETF that it's a real problem we encounter.

BR
Yunfei

zhangyunfei

From: Thomas Narten
Date: 2012-03-01 21:29
To: Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
CC: sami@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sami] First SAMI email in the new year, can we go further? Look forward to your opinions.
Hi.

> According to previous discussion, one of the arguement is that we
>  don't need State Migration if there is no VM Migration, we can, for
>  example running active-active VMs mechanism to replace VM
>  Migration.

I think this is a bit of a strawman.

I would expect pretty much everyone on this list would agree that VM
migration takes place, under a wide range of conditions. So let's just
take it as a given that VM migration exists.

Personally, I can see the theoretical benefit of state migration
(e.g., of a firewall). But for me, the biggest reason I have been
skeptical of this effort so far is that I don't see real operators
stepping forwarding saying they need "state migration" in a real
concrete sense.

The IETF does much better when it has a real operational problem
driving a solution. We need such a problem in order to privide a
verification that should we attempt to develop a solution, the
solution actually solves a real world problem.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
sami mailing list
sami@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sami