Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
"Monique Morrow (mmorrow)" <mmorrow@cisco.com> Thu, 29 July 2010 08:40 UTC
Return-Path: <mmorrow@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: vnrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E1628C0DF for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cZDWOzj1AXLD for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0936128C113 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAPbUExAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACgCHGkVZsAhTgEizc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.55,279,1278288000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="140645163"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2010 08:41:12 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6T8eomJ014380 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:41:12 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-110.cisco.com ([144.254.74.85]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:40:38 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2EF9.B7F8ECC6"
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:40:37 +0200
Message-ID: <317616CE96204D49B5A1811098BA89500278772A@XMB-AMS-110.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
Thread-Index: Acsu+Ag22mHDm1XFQB2ykKD7JvMINQAAGFvT
References: <4C5139C6.9020300@kit.edu> <4C513B95.2080804@tid.es>
From: "Monique Morrow (mmorrow)" <mmorrow@cisco.com>
To: paag@tid.es, vnrg@irtf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2010 08:40:38.0382 (UTC) FILETIME=[B84A90E0:01CB2EF9]
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
X-BeenThere: vnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <vnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg>, <mailto:vnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/vnrg>
List-Post: <mailto:vnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg>, <mailto:vnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:40:54 -0000
Further to layering vs virtualization is the issue of "control" : implication of administrative domains [inter-domain] -- or is it relevant? Monique -----Original Message----- From: vnrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of Pedro Andrés Aranda Gutiérrez Sent: Thu 7/29/2010 1:28 AM To: vnrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization Hi, Roland is really making an interesting point here. IMHO, we have to say which layer we are talking about. Examples I see: L1: DWDM; different lambdas are different virtual networks at L1 L2: 802.1q L2.5: the venerable ATM and MPLS nowadays Cheers,/PA On 29/07/10 10:20, Roland Bless wrote: > Hi, > > I thought a little bit more on that topic, e.g., whether IP > on top of Ethernet itself is a virtualization technique and I > think that it is not - longer rationale below. First, I want to second > what Aaron said: we should consider network technologies other > than IP in the substrate as well as in the virtual network. So > sometimes it is easier to think of some abstract substrate technology > instead of IP as substrate. > > However, I think one difference between "layering" and virtualization > is as follows: > when you put another protocol layer on top, you usually have to > do it in the "end-system"/at the end points, i.e., IP nodes are > sitting at L2 end points whereas L2 nodes (e.g., switches) are > transparent for L2 end points. > Same in L3 (letting the control plane aside for this moment): > routers as L3 network nodes are largely transparent for > the end-systems (except for first/last-hop routers), > i.e., a transport connection at L4 is normally > terminated in L3 end-systems. So in this way neither IP is a virtual > network on top of Ethernet nor is a TCP connection on top of IP, but I > would consider IP as an overlay and abstraction technique (it mainly > abstracts from different L2 networks in its substrate). > > In contrast, a virtualization technique in/at L2 involves mechanisms > within the L2 nodes, e.g., support of VLAN tagging. > A real network virtualization technique at layer 3 would require, > e.g., partitioning of a L3 node/a router; lets consider that you are > running a different protocol than IP in a partition. > The "hard part" now is getting/demultiplexing from the substrate > to the virtual parts of the router. There are various ways to do it > depending on the substrate's capabilities. > So using a dedicated physical L2 port would be one possibility, > using VLANs over a shared L2 cable would be another. If the substrate > is on higher layers MPLS LSPs or L3 tunnels etc. can be used. > > Sometimes it also helps to think on addressing the virtual resources > from the control plane inside the substrate. Basically you have > to address a VNet (denoting a specific virtual network), > a Virtual Node, and a specific Virtual Interface inside the > Virtual Node, e.g., in order to connect a substrate link/tunnel > to a specific interface of this particular virtual node. > However, it is not required that VNet-IDs, Virtual Node IDs, > or Virtual Link/Interface IDs are literally carried in substrate > data packets since there could be link-specific mapping techniques using > available multiplexing mechanisms, e.g., VLAN-tags. > In analogy one can denote such link-specific identifiers for VNets as > "VNet-Tags". A VNet-Tag identifies a virtual link in a link-specific > context. In absence of multiplexing support in the substrate, it may be > required to use an explicit shim header that carries the > VNet-Tag in order to allow proper demultiplexing of virtual networks on > a shared substrate link. > > To keep a long story short: when talking about virtualization > we must be specific which layer is actually virtualized or do we > consider layer 3 only? > > Regards, > Roland > _______________________________________________ > vnrg mailing list > vnrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg -- Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez Telefónica I+D Technology Specialist New Network Technologies mailto: paag@tid.es C/Emilio Vargas,6 Tlf: +34-913 374 702 E-28043 Madrid "Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden. Fragen sind da, um gestellt zu werden" Georg Kreisler http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/pedro-a-aranda-gutierrez _______________________________________________ vnrg mailing list vnrg@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg
- [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization Roland Bless
- Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization Pedro Andrés Aranda Gutiérrez
- Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
- Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization Roland Bless
- Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization Pedro Andrés Aranda Gutiérrez