Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions
PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ <pedroa.aranda@tid.es> Sat, 10 May 2014 07:00 UTC
Return-Path: <pedroa.aranda@tid.es>
X-Original-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851ED1A01A7 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 May 2014 00:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZovjMXPVdy-j for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 May 2014 00:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5160E1A00DB for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 May 2014 00:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0N5C00G2IJGEN9@tid.hi.inet> for vnfpool@ietf.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:00:14 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 56.13.09716.E7ECD635; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:00:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0N5C00G2EJGEN9@tid.hi.inet> for vnfpool@ietf.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:00:14 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from EX10-MB1-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.1.183]) by EX10-HTCAS5-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:00:13 +0200
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 07:00:12 +0000
From: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ <pedroa.aranda@tid.es>
In-reply-to: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645D07B26@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115]
To: "vnfpool@ietf.org" <vnfpool@ietf.org>
Message-id: <CF93961A.BB59%paag@tid.es>
Content-id: <63D91A350545AE4098216F2EF45A431F@hi.inet>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-language: es-ES
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: es-ES, es-ES, en-US
Thread-topic: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions
Thread-index: AQHPavgYEx3xMAyBFkmloyUW4dqDcJs31msAgADhkQCAAK0NAA==
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-f79b16d0000025f4-90-536dce7ed814
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrIIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqFt3LjfYYOc1DYsZl/6zODB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY13bRKaCb3IVqzY1sDQwTpDrYuTkkBAwkbiy/SkzhC0mceHe ejYQW0hgO6PEnsdGXYxcQPZvRomWQzMZIZyZjBIHD11jB6liEVCVePbuNlgHm4CVxNzNfxlB bGEBR4lp81eAxTkFIiSamm8yQmxQkPhz7jELiC0ioClx+cU8sBpeAXWJ3w1dYHFmATOJW5P/ M0HEBSV+TL4HFOcAiqtLTJmSC1EiLjHn10RWCFtRYtqiBkaQEkYBFYkJ+4shpjtJHN1yCKwT xL63XgwkLCqgJ/Hu+HwmiGMEJJbsOQ/1uqjEy8f/WCE+nMoosaT1LesERolZSA6aheSgWQgH zUJy0CwkBy1gZF3FKFacVJSZnlGSm5iZk25gpJeRqZeZl1qyiREScZk7GJfvVDnEKMDBqMTD W/A2J1iINbGsuDL3EKMEB7OSCO+Kg7nBQrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViUxHmZ3xUFCAmk J5akZqemFqQWwWSZODilGhjnJa3xmyjx4RCng5bZ19Upbav5bXmjE796ZDZMfXHae1nsWoUn MeJLH4t5nV7fcbc7lPu2ac55F3bT6kmCW+28tjSmKAixMU86K7TQWlDl8ssy9y2Wli9ZZ/cf TNUoDf3jfTTpgHXAUn2xuXsC5htmTo5+oHmkRvCf1lzfeSm7Luxk5g98ul2JpTgj0VCLuag4 EQCFoN7LtAIAAA==
References: <536BE238.7090907@nomountain.net> <CF92450E.BA88%paag@tid.es> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645D07B26@dfweml701-chm.china.huawei.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/2f5CkVmG6qTgzD2OBoLd_T8eyN0
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions
X-BeenThere: vnfpool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <vnfpool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vnfpool/>
List-Post: <mailto:vnfpool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 07:00:23 -0000
Hi Linda, Congratulations for reading through a coding mess :-) Answers inline, Best, /PA Dr. Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez Technology Exploration - Network Innovation & Virtualisation mailto:paag@tid.es Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo C/ D. Ramón de la Cruz,84 28006 Madrid, Spain Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden. Fragen sind da, um gestellt zu werden. Georg Kreisler El 10/05/14 00:40, "Linda Dunbar" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> escribió: >Pedro, > >Are you saying that the physical boxes also have chance to fail, why >VNFpool emphasizes so much on Virtualized Network Functions? Yes, physical boxes also tend to fail (in the worst possible moment, if you believe in Murphy’s law :-) ) >Here is my take on this issue: > >It is very likely that the physical devices, either compute or storage >devices, have embedded restoration & protection mechanism. OK, but at what price? If you want to keep costs at a reasonable level, you will probably go to a virtualised environment, with HW that is more cost effective and with simpler mechanisms for resilience. >Take your storage example, many storage arrays have their own embedded >protection mechanism. When a server write/read from a storage array, it >doesn't know if the data is from stand-by devices. Once again, I agree. But while many do, not all have it necessarily. This is also a question of costs. Thus we can’t take protection for granted in ‘discrete’ boxes. >Whereas, in the virtualized environment, functions instantiated on >virtual mechanism doesn't have its own protection mechanism. Therefore, >the "high availability" requires the "coordination" among all the other >instances, hopefully in the standard way. Completely agree. And hopefully we can use the same standard mechanisms in cost effective physical (as opposed to virtualised) devices, too. >Linda My point is that I see network functions independently of the device that implements them and whether this is a physical device or a virtualised function. IMHO, hybrid environments tend to have the advantage of lowering the entry barrier: continue using what you have deployes and press the last dime out of it while introducing next-gen solutions in a virtualised environment that is more cost-effective than your current system. This ‘soft’ introduction also alleviates the pressure of having to cope with something completely new on network admins. Best,/PA ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
- [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functi… Melinda Shore
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… Dave Dolson
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… karagian
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
- [vnfpool] 答复: Virtualized vs. physical network fu… Zongning
- Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network fu… Susan Hares