IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions

<karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Fri, 09 May 2014 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
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 E0C101A01DB for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 22:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 hRxP3KqvL-AJ for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 22:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out27-ams.mf.surf.net (out27-ams.mf.surf.net [145.0.1.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF991A01D9 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 22:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (exedge02.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.49]) by outgoing1-ams.mf.surf.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id s495RZ8N030141; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:27:36 +0200
Received: from EXHUB01.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.228) by EXEDGE02.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:27:40 +0200
Received: from EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.3.47]) by EXHUB01.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.228]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Fri, 9 May 2014 07:27:35 +0200
From: <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
To: <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, <vnfpool@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions
Thread-Index: AQHPavgZsYHwUG6JUk+rELPMjkkfz5s3tiRD
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 05:27:34 +0000
Message-ID: <FF1A9612A94D5C4A81ED7DE1039AB80F4F467DCF@EXMBX23.ad.utwente.nl>
References: <536BE238.7090907@nomountain.net>
In-Reply-To: <536BE238.7090907@nomountain.net>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: nl-NL
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [86.91.134.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: utwente-out:default, base:default, @@RPTN)
X-CanIt-Geo: ip=130.89.5.49; country=NL; region=Provincie Overijssel; city=Enschede; latitude=52.2195; longitude=6.8912; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=52.2195,6.8912&z=6
X-CanItPRO-Stream: utwente-out:default (inherits from utwente:default, base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0uLXFrAoa - 0c9ff738157a - 20140509 (trained as not-spam)
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/8Y0Ea-DQzYIuUQ-lXyfbqtK9nAc
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: Fri, 09 May 2014 05:27:46 -0000

Hi Melinda,

Please note that a reliability model for network functions running directly on hardware might be different than the reliability model for virtualized functions running on a virtualization platform. So, if we would want to support both, then we may need to broaden the scope of the WG, which we do not want.
So for the initial phase of the WG we could focus only on the reliability model for virtualized functions and as a second step (after re-chartering) we could see how the provided solutions could be applied to functions running directly on hardware.

Best regards,
Georgios



________________________________________
Van: vnfpool [vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] namens Melinda Shore [melinda.shore@nomountain.net]
Verzonden: donderdag 8 mei 2014 21:59
Aan: vnfpool@ietf.org
Onderwerp: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions

One of the things that came up at the BOF in London and that
hasn't received any subsequent discussion is the question of
the applicability of network function reliability based on
a pooling/redundancy model being applicable to network functions
running directly on hardware, in addition to virtualized
functions (as we've been discussing).  To be honest I'm still
not 100% clear on the issue and it would be helpful if
someone who's got opinions on the topic could take a whack at
it.

Thanks,

Melinda

--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
melinda.shore@nomountain.net

"Software longa, hardware brevis."

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email