Re: [vnfpool] State management

"Y. Richard Yang" <> Sat, 26 July 2014 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D63E1A0049 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGW71m-6wyqV for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA77B1A0048 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hu12so8430938vcb.20 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mtVX+W6q1NgfJEgmtu2XkOUmAYO0saMziTdFrxZeA3c=; b=ojPzEujuEEK0Wmx55WczIo4M9UmcKWyBp4Fb/SI7H8xGsZgDy2rM81O4H3StikTni/ oxn/xtuXJmTm7sNaUlRu7/D+TBTR05CxuNEeToNCcbRyaQbf3KIx6r0a3XUvIIULUivQ QA2SgvVHjFmKHvexa5jb2eLJH3kR+X/Pxa2ZTQKbJmWmVsSrcEHZD/2QcHzZCHpQCdf7 BEIE2PSzpV2CJh1zKwrVGFy9DbOI2tms5fsODRlFGSjPILJvOeyNzHlrsBUtHneQqbYs vF7PQwpcFhegKDyYOioKn+cNyeYziFnhWFqvYfQUEaPnCh+GGgjtRnlw6aUTXGI+V8DE H1dw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id fa8mr5878752vdd.57.1406339355043; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <06be01cfa855$9bd1acd0$d3750670$> <> <>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:49:14 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: IFwGUzXZKR9fJKl2TztDFENWyi4
Message-ID: <>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134a1dab0ef4c04ff0ee519"
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] State management
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 01:49:17 -0000

Hi Melinda,

Not sure why you got the impression of these people arguing against a
modular. I do not. I strongly support.

Go back to industry practice. Zookeeper (Google) uses a single unifying
mechanism (its special file system abstraction)to handle instance
registration, instance keep alive, state sync, etc. A great design!

Given that the initial purpose of the WG appears to be gap analysis,
according to my understanding, I feel that leaving state sync, arguably a
key piece, out of scope, is not ideal.  If the concern is that design is
hard, gap analysis may be not. This will make your WG work more valuable.
Make sense?

I am taking off now, and may be quiet for a while. I certainly hope the
proposed work (and adding one more item: state gap analysis) be approved.


On Jul 25, 2014 9:26 PM, "Melinda Shore" <> wrote:

> On 7/25/14, 8:51 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
>> In my view, without state management, the vnfpool problem is hardly
>> solvable, i.e., reaching a usable goal. Hence, it is my attempt to
>> understand the "puzzle" posted by Martin. IETF prefers real use case
>> droven design.
> I'd argue that while it may be the case, the piece that's
> missing here, I think, is that the IETF prefers problems
> to be broken down into solvable chunks.  State management
> is necessarily application-specific, while what we've been
> trying to work on is a common substrate that can be used
> to carry application-specific state.  So, for the time being,
> the substrate would be in-scope and the application state
> would be out-of-scope, whether it would be handled by a
> rechartered vnfpool or a separate working group (or
> working groups).  There's certainly precedent for this
> sort of approach - for example nsis, MPLS, and others.
> One of the things that concerns me, as someone who'd like
> to see the work progress, is that those who are insisting
> that this is an atomic problem seem also to effectively be
> arguing against a modular approach to designing a solution.
> And frankly I'm somewhat dismayed by that.
> Melinda
> _______________________________________________
> vnfpool mailing list