Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 15 July 2010 15:36 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 D434B3A6B53 for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 6YqHQGMzP20u for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9EF93A6B2B for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [75.214.66.244] (244.sub-75-214-66.myvzw.com [75.214.66.244]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6FFIR6N002444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C3F26BF.7090009@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:18:23 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Didier Colle <didier.colle@intec.UGent.be>
References: <4C3F0DC4.2060705@intec.UGent.be>
In-Reply-To: <4C3F0DC4.2060705@intec.UGent.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: vnrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual
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, 15 Jul 2010 15:36:38 -0000
Hi, Didier, (again, speaking as a participant only), IMO, On 7/15/2010 6:31 AM, Didier Colle wrote: > Dear all, > > Joe raised the issue of logical vs. virtual. > I believe it is worth spending a separate thread on clarifying this point. > > At the bottom of this email is my proposal. ... > Conclusion: not really clear definition of both terms. Agreed. > My proposal: > * Logical is opposite of physical: The same could be said of virtual. > logical always requires mapping to > physical. Of course, logical can be mapped on some other logical thing > that itself needs mapping to physical. I think the same is true here as well. I tend to think of a logical device as not really adding to the capabilities of a physical one, though, whereas a virtual one seems to (at least to me). Maybe these are really just two aspects of a single thing, i.e., I would differentiate between: - a device which does not map 1:1 to a physical entity (could be a part of one, a group of many, or a group of parts) - a device which provides supports virtual networking Since we call the latter "virtual networking" (the name of this RG), I would propose that the latter would be the virtual device, and the former be the logical one. This matches the term 'logical' in many other places, e.g., logical disks (which can be part of a single disk, or a group [ala RAID], or a group of parts [RAID done on disk partitions]). > More formally, this mapping is a > general function: 1) nothing should prohibit mapping multiple logical > names/addresses to a single physical address/thing, 2) not all physical > entities must have a logical counterpart. Also the source and target of > the mapping should not be restricted in terms of types: names can be > mapped onto other names or names can be mapped onto address for examples. I agree with the above. > * Virtual is a specialized form of logical, as the virtualization > technology still needs to map a virtual entity onto a single > non-virtualized (physical or isolated uniquely identifiable logical) > entity, while guaranteeing isolation. I don't think of it as a 'specialized form', but rather the fact that a single virtual router CANNOT be mapped onto a single physical device with no other logical components. I.e., a virtual router needs a base router to connect to the links of the tunnel. A virtual host needs a base router (as well) for the same reason. > More formally, this mapping is an > injection of tupples of <entity, virtual instance ID> onto entities of > the same type (thus not mapping of names into addresses for example: > virtualization of name space, means mapping <virtual name, instance ID> > on to unique identifiable <name>, virtualization of virtual memory (I > would rather call this logical memory) page tables <virtual page number > (seen by application), instance ID> on to <system wide page number>). This part is a stretch to me, though. Joe
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Didier Colle
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Sangjin Jeong
- [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Didier Colle
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Joe Touch
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Joe Touch
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Sunay Tripathi
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual $witch
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual $witch
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Roland Bless
- Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual Roland Bless