Re: [vnrg] Logical vs. virtual

"$witch" <a.spinella@rfc1925.net> Tue, 08 February 2011 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <a.spinella@rfc1925.net>
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 94B663A679F for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.743
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 38pIR+zrYWxW for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from joy.rfc1925.net (host10-102-static.12-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it [87.12.102.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4CE3A63D2 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:58:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from joy.rfc1925.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by joy.rfc1925.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F53912555D for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:58:06 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc1925.net
Received: from joy.rfc1925.net ([127.0.0.1]) by joy.rfc1925.net (joy.rfc1925.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id x+6cc2MUDprp for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:58:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from LSD25.communicationvalley.it (unknown [194.246.127.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: a.spinella@rfc1925.net) by joy.rfc1925.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E79112555E for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:58:01 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D517618.2050808@rfc1925.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:58:00 +0100
From: "$witch" <a.spinella@rfc1925.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101214 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vnrg@irtf.org
References: <4C3F0DC4.2060705@intec.UGent.be> <4C3F26BF.7090009@isi.edu><4C3F390A.2090403@intec.UGent.be> <4C3F3C87.1010303@isi.edu> <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F0818112@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
In-Reply-To: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F0818112@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:58:03 -0000

On 02/08/11 16:37, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
......

>
> Virtual on the other hand describes more the fact that you can use something which is actually not really existing, ...
>

Hi, Martin and all

as newbye am adding just "canonicals 2 cents" :

in my mind virtual has "temporary-limited" meaning more than 
"not-really-existing" while logical implies something that will be 
multiplexed by a phisical "something" (as in logical-interfaces and 
phisical-interfaces); maybe definition can include (or exclude) that 
interpretation.




Alessandro