Re: [sami] Bringing new work into the IETF

["Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

Thank you so much for your attention and such detail suggestion. I really
appreciate it.

 

I believe there are some misunderstanding. But I appreciate the chance to
clarify our target.

 

The intention of State Migration is not to standardize VM Migration. The
focus is how to migrate state on network devices when VM is migrating, just
like the name ‘State Migration’ means. How to do virtualization and how to
migrate the VM is out of the scope. 

You can do VM migration either by a standardized way(I am not sure there is
a standard way) or proprietary way. It doesn’t matter. The problem is the
state associated with the VM on old network devices, e.g. Hardware Firewall,
Load Balancer or switches, also need to be correctly presented on new
network devices at the new location. Otherwise the running service will have
to be stopped. 

The state could be TCP states on Firewall or Session states on Load
Balancer. When migrating state, one may find that he has to migrate state
between devices designed by different vendors. That is why we need a
standardized way to do this. 

 

 

Currently we are try to narrow down the scope: e.g. do we consider state
migration within a L2 subnet, or also consider state migration between L2
subnets. We will also figure our the state that is essential to service
continuity after VM Migration. 

 

As conclusion, we are not working on VM Migration or Virtualization. We are
not trying to standardize virtualization, VM migration, TCP/IP stacks,
storage, etc. Neither does virtual host configuration in the scope.

 

 

Also I would like to know whether there is confusing text in the mail list
description or in my ever reply to the mail list or in my draft that make
people feel that we are working on VM Migration. If there is, I will
definitely revise them at once.

 

Again, thank you for your detail suggestion. 

 

Best Regards

Gu Yingjie

 

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: David Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2011年8月18日 乐乐23:25
收件人: 'Yingjie Gu(yingjie)'; [e-mail]
主题: Bringing new work into the IETF

 

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

> 

>