Re: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward

"Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannu.flinck@nsn.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hannu.flinck@nsn.com>
X-Original-To: vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1F921F8892 for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z+tZZAbwiUb5 for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC06C21F8891 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p7573Uex023729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:03:30 +0200
Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p7573RMi006069 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:03:30 +0200
Received: from FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.25]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:03:24 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:03:23 +0300
Message-ID: <26E5D1C5D5365D47B147E5E62FC73585036D307A@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E3B09D2.70202@kit.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward
Thread-Index: AcxS6moEGqpSf002SpmYAzH5+wX4zAAUd4RA
References: <4E3936FF.1090006@kit.edu><EFDB2B5417263843B5077E12666D8C10187C646B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com><4E39A744.8010508@kit.edu><EFDB2B5417263843B5077E12666D8C10187C6490@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com><4E3A59FE.1090809@kit.edu><EFDB2B5417263843B5077E12666D8C1018FD26C8@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4E3B09D2.70202@kit.edu>
From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannu.flinck@nsn.com>
To: <vnrg@irtf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2011 07:03:24.0571 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4BCA6B0:01CC533D]
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward
X-BeenThere: vnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <vnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 07:03:17 -0000

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: vnrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:vnrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Roland Bless
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:06 AM
To: Papadimitriou,Dimitri (Dimitri)
Cc: vnrg@irtf.org
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?