IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [vnrg] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer

Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@stanford.edu> Thu, 11 November 2010 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rob.sherwood@gmail.com>
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 E253F3A688B for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:56:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.845
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 4VwuUd02BuuX for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C372D3A684F for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so1682066iwn.13 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:57:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=uyoJ8ufx05yTSObeTuyV6jNY17mNCg4sLIjsW3lTLAo=; b=dwEgcZSXNYdQoPdq0tV+OJrmve2aY/dkC8gumxWQtDCBEGndTKN02aOQr5mQGGznUD mQUq04Ng+xNxWEhz7Zf7Ee4WW0Np6zeiQuP44c6rdBVDswGjRIi62T8cpZ8+8PafnaKc zBUk/KsEUu1y5v7VQuiSIm3xPsT0ErbbwrBiI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=PLBjArN0n6r51yl00NkiJVwy25MlwSUAXst5relnvYTyuLTdBQaeZEKSrxRuPdtXq+ GhR+VtOLeSBYPUcZ8uF2MrrO48RofvoTBtUUr93t7J6Sa5R+thM+jO4MywLOfvvk39WU 5ySApKd1QFnBa+O6ivX/r2Hxs6ep7XzEESjvQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.39.196 with SMTP id h4mr206812ibe.35.1289451441476; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Sender: rob.sherwood@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.199.204 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:57:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F077A514@PALLENE.office.hd>
References: <BLU135-W190369C0E27E5EE48D6A7FC84E0@phx.gbl> <AANLkTimQFH_P_6fcGH6fT72TQ+WrQV605QQoBaHm+g-i@mail.gmail.com> <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F077A514@PALLENE.office.hd>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:57:21 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2lQWYEOR2RhYJqE1cAeRqb4paT0
Message-ID: <AANLkTikzzvoues2b5Mg-md_Vj=Lgwy6hQi3CPqJUdP4j@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@stanford.edu>
To: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 04:56:56 -0000

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Martin Stiemerling
<Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu> wrote:
> 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?

Just so I understand you, you mean, for example, something like
channel bonding, where packets from one virtual link are load-balanced
across multiple physical links?

Right now, FlowVisor itself does not support this.  So, there are two
qualifications there: 1) this is just a limitation of the current
implementation and would be fairly trivial to add, and 2) one reason
why it's not currently implemented is that support for this is still
being added to the OpenFlow protocol (see the proposed OpenFlow 1.1
extensions off of openflow.org), so once that's in place, it will be
much cleaner to implement, architecturally speaking.   That, and no
one has asked for it :-)

I apologies, but it looks like I will be unable to join the
presentation (virtually or otherwise).  But I do appreciate the
conversation that has been taking place on the list and look forward
to continuing these dialogs.

- Rob
.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email