Re: [vnfpool] Virtualized vs. physical network functions

At the BOF in London I asked why a solution should only be applicable to software running on a virtual machine vs. running on any machine.
The point of virtualization is that it is transparently so; it could be real or it could be virtual.

So I was scratching my head when some people were saying, "no, this must only be about virtual functions."

My understanding from the BoF was that the solutions will be applicable to any kind of network functions, but virtualization is driving the use cases, hence the name of the working group.

I'm satisfied with that answer.

So I'm assuming that the solution devised here could be applicable to a pool of software services, regardless of where they are running. Presumably the only requirement is that they reside at IP end-points.

Make sense?

David Dolson
Senior Software Architect, Sandvine Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 4:00 PM
To: vnfpool@ietf.org
Subject: [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