IETF Logo Mail Archive

[vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> Thu, 08 May 2014 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
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 915671A012E for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
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 MrJEx11l58yO for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CF81A012A for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6FC2AC073 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=nomountain.net; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; s=nomountain.net; bh=1LQ5usHT5svpeRkD 1HKmMvQmKuI=; b=DU2ARXObnC927WJOWOcfKplSLuBcLLdxxFj2SwPT8x0xzFCd /b3sGRpZk2Pe6G6z22QbLtRLU+d2jTxf9HyXEm9/P1351KHDX8TlPmIfXZzC8wpC gxjlovhS1F/qoXuox0hn+GbUMkU2R+fO5uI2H8duKkcd6MZNXkjj9J4IqOc=
Received: from spandex.local (63-140-93-189.dynamic.dsl.acsalaska.net [63.140.93.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: melinda.shore@nomountain.net) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C96A12AC05D for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 12:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <536BE238.7090907@nomountain.net>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 11:59:52 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vnfpool@ietf.org" <vnfpool@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/Pk5E6Nq60ogWlBsZ_AyKypC4RDQ
Subject: [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: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:59:59 -0000

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."

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status