Re: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward

["Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Roland and Dimitri

I agree that the definition of Infrastructure Provider is problematic. I
do not think that stating "... an InP may provide many different types
of substrate
resources, e.g., network nodes, links, servers, hosts, storage, etc."
captures the issue yet.

Virtual networks and physical networks (substrate) can be mixed and
matched. A MVNO can have most of its infra as "virtual" but some parts
can be very physical (substrate), say by having its own base stations in
some key areas. Same applies to many enterprise network where parts of
the resources are virtualized and externalized and some are under the
control of the enterprise itself. Such an entity would be both InP and
VNP at the same time. Do we really need to have define InP and VNP at
all as these terms do not add clarity but confusion? 

Best regards
Hannu 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
ext Roland Bless
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:06 AM
To: Papadimitriou,Dimitri (Dimitri)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward

Hi Dimitri and all,

On 04.08.2011 12:28, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri) wrote:
> Trying to summarize the discussion:

> o) VNRG, even if dealing virtual network, does not mandate VN
> provided exclusively by networking infrastructure providers. Part of
> the problem comes from the definition initially proposed which refers
> to Infrastructure Provider whereas one should speak about a Physical
> Resource Host (or a term that doesn't implicitly assign VN roles from
> the roles inherited by current physical networks).

To me "Infrastructure Provider" is a broad term not necessarily
narrowing down to solely a meaning of "_Network_ Infrastructure
Provider". That is, an InP may provide many different types of substrate
resources, e.g., network nodes, links, servers, hosts, storage, etc.
Would that be ok for you?