Re: [vnrg] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer

Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu> Thu, 11 November 2010 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
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 F1E6928C132 for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 WWp4EDNaJFMD for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8959C28C10B for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC20E2C0001AF; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:16:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office.hd)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-4RzcGCSY5D; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:16:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (Methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDFE2C0001AD; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:16:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.113]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0255.000; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:16:06 +0100
From: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
To: Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@stanford.edu>, Guillaume FORTAINE <gfortaine@live.com>
Thread-Topic: [vnrg] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer
Thread-Index: AQHLfq+ve7WdllPFUUmY6qrZo98OIpNnvqmAgAPhSJA=
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:16:05 +0000
Message-ID: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F077A514@PALLENE.office.hd>
References: <BLU135-W190369C0E27E5EE48D6A7FC84E0@phx.gbl> <AANLkTimQFH_P_6fcGH6fT72TQ+WrQV605QQoBaHm+g-i@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimQFH_P_6fcGH6fT72TQ+WrQV605QQoBaHm+g-i@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.7.0.196]
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] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer
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, 11 Nov 2010 03:15:56 -0000

Rob,

You say:

> - network topologies that are independent of the physical topology
> (currently FlowVisor is restricted to subsets of the physical
> topology)

Does this also exclude right now the aggregation of multiple links to one virtual link?

Thanks,

  Martin

martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: vnrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:vnrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> Rob Sherwood
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 6:00 PM
> To: Guillaume FORTAINE
> Cc: vnrg@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [vnrg] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> Apologies that I was not able to attend the working group meeting, but
> thanks for the interest on FlowVisor.  I flipped through the slides at
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/VNRG-0.pdf
> 
> and at least from the slides (I'm not sure how the
> presentation/discussion about these slides went) I think there might
> be a few things that need clarification:
> 
> In most of the flowvisor literature, we're very careful to describe
> this as "network *slicing*" as opposed to "network virtualization".
> The key differences (as brought out in the slides) is that current,
> FlowVisor does not support:
> 
> - two slices controlling the same virtual address space (e.g.,
> 10.0.0.0/24) but the flowvisor rewriting them to different physical
> addresses
> - network topologies that are independent of the physical topology
> (currently FlowVisor is restricted to subsets of the physical
> topology)
> 
> Both of these points are limits of the current implementation, but not
> of the design, and my thoughts for the future are to take FV towards
> implementing these points.
> 
> If anyone is interested in learning more about FlowVisor or its
> deployments as part of GENI, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks again for the interest,
> 
> - Rob
> .
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Guillaume FORTAINE
> <gfortaine@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > For your information :
> > -Flowvisor :
> > http://www.usenix.org/events/osdi/tech/slides/sherwood.pdf
> > http://www.deutsche-telekom-laboratories.de/~robert/flowvisor-
> osdi10.pdf
> > http://www.openflow.org/wk/index.php/FlowVisor
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Guillaume FORTAINE
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vnrg mailing list
> > vnrg@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg
> >
> _______________________________________________
> vnrg mailing list
> vnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg