Re: [vnrg] Status of the VNRG: Dormant or dead?

Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu> Wed, 06 July 2011 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
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 CD5A921F874E for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 J8uOrSCGRObO for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2131121F8751 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8844F28000327; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:27:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dKTDAgPl-XBZ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:27:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (Methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6EF28000174; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:27:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from DAPHNIS.office.hd ([169.254.2.22]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:27:27 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
To: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [vnrg] Status of the VNRG: Dormant or dead?
Thread-Index: Acw7rQWG5O18aq1bS2qGkGoFU+shKgAA3fSAAAWKGrA=
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:27:26 +0000
Message-ID: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F01CED79D6@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F01CED6E4D@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <4E142E69.5040606@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4E142E69.5040606@kit.edu>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "vnrg@irtf.org" <vnrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Status of the VNRG: Dormant or dead?
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:27:38 -0000

Hi Roland, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Bless [mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:44 AM
> To: Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: vnrg@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [vnrg] Status of the VNRG: Dormant or dead?
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 06.07.2011 09:39, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> > The subject line may be partly incorrect, but that is my current question:
> > Is the VNRG just dormant or has the overall interest in the work of RG
> passed away?
> 
> I think that the interest hasn't passed away, but maybe people were
> probably busy with other stuff.

That is good to know and what I actually have hoped for.

> 
> > We had the last meeting at the Beijing IETF meeting and also some lively
> discussion afterwards.
> >
> > One of the areas of discussion was (amongst many others):
> > - openflow vs. forces
> > - how forces would fit in virtual networks
> 
> I see both technologies mainly focused on control plane / data plane
> separation. This doesn't allow

What doesn't it allow for? The sentence ends very early.

> 
> > - do we need tunnel headers for virtual networks on the wire or not?
> 
> That depends on the substrate technology, some allow to embed a "VNet
> Tag" to identify different virtual links, e.g., VLAN-Tags in Ethernet headers.

Right, and my usage of the word deader is probably wrong, as there may be other technologies which use a different light color and not a header to distinguish a VN. 

> 
> > - definition of acid tests
> 
> Not only definition of acid tests, but also definition of terms. For instance,
> how differ traditional VPNs from Virtual Networks in the context of network
> virtualization? IMHO current VPN solutions concentrate mainly on virtual
> links, advanced concepts consider virtual nodes as active elements. How do
> OpenFlow concepts fit into the classification?

True. Especially VPNs have been discussed multiple times, probably writing this up in a note. 

> 
> > What do you see is important for the RG right now or what is missing?
> 
> See above, but maybe we should also consider questions such as what
> interfaces and protocols are needed for creating inter-provider virtual
> networks.

Ok, I see. 

My question wrt the above paragraph: 
Should the RG run the phase of defining terms, concepts and acid tests in parallel to other questions? We emphasized on a strong phased operational model for the RG until now, but I could imagine a more relaxed operational mode. 

Regards,

  Martin