Re: [vnrg] Towards a Virtual Network definition

Dae Young KIM <> Thu, 17 February 2011 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF7E3A6DC6 for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:07:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.476
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LiO9sELrFTvF for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0EA3A6CAA for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so1081990vws.13 for <>; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:07:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=4yKfgB4XAqLzSMoTh7kCStFXLBW3GrqfJO1pbTxL66E=; b=chk6Gi9+27Pnp0H2dhocQO20CBQkhWJNboB+4s06fIv4Z3E012dKtLE1RIweFpxiU+ ef15qupwENVbN2vPRL/pDKT/lMtEH9yNWwD8to45P4zUusmzBBJdn3lKQylUOTzSyZ1G 8jnUqxbbOVNDw2gbAlwQrDcPxKtQ/cemkKP5U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=TU4DQ6l1x+8pNPFNFkcOWM3nhL2d63O5tRI4cMIGqZNTxbzfVt4lIziQ09qyfiKxpC gWwczdk6/6ZP9WMagUGifj71so1MohHPi7XZ7awXNwu3EpjZi94Auw+YzXFPBTQmFad4 fZ0ZyZNQxsdQLN8wjKdhIpswivNSIGYNrEVjY=
Received: by with SMTP id wp3mr140203vdb.234.1297948072383; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:07:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:07:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Dae Young KIM <>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:07:32 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: X19MDVsF5BEX7Me7egS1Rco2tIQ
Message-ID: <>
To: Roland Bless <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53f954fca95f3049c7a152f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:00:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Towards a Virtual Network definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:07:23 -0000

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Roland Bless <> wrote:

> > Are we sure about this? As a experimenter, I'd also be interested in
> > virtualization of entities deeper in the layer, that is, virtualization
> > of even L2 and L1.
> Ok, why not, but IMHO one should distinguish, however, what is your
> currently considered layer that is virtualized and what is the
> substrate (which might be heterogeneous). And as I said, you may use
> also virtualization techniques in the substrate, e.g. VLANs etc.

So, my deeper layer (L2 and L1) might be your substrate..?

Yes, your picture is simpler and cleaner. Yet, I'd like to experiment on my
new switching technology, like new kind of circuit switching or hybrid

Where do I get virtualized lambda pipe or virtualized switching fabric so
that I can test my wild L1 and L2 ideas in a global scale?

> In the 4WARD project the VNet topology description didn't include
> hosts or stub nodes since they are dynamically attached and you usually
> don't know a priori which hosts will be attached. Furthermore, mobility
> of hosts is another reason why it is difficult to include them into
> a topology description. So maybe it's better to say: hosts are part
> of the VNet (topology) but don't belong to the VNet infrastructure.

Then what about mobile routers or subnets, i.e., MANETs? Subnets themselves
are moving around and touch each other in an ad hoc fashion; vehicular
network and many other futuristic scenarios.

Shall we say the belong to the VNet infra or such mobile subnets/routers are
off the infra?

(So, I'm trying to tease you... :-)).