Re: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward

Roland Bless <> Fri, 05 August 2011 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECE821F8B76 for <>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z4Lf-t0jEUNG for <>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4354E21F8B54 for <>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp port 25 id 1QpICo-0001Aw-KS; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:04:47 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00A5A80067; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:04:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:04:39 +0200
From: Roland Bless <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <>
References: <><><><><><> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (
X-ATIS-Timestamp: 1312542287.914099000
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Some definitions and way forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:04:34 -0000

Hi Hannu,

On 05.08.2011 10:31, Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> Can you please elaborate what do you mean by "As soon as you
> areconsidering control plane issues, different roles matter a lot." For
> me the InP and VNP doesn't seem to be that useful other than explaining
> a certain, somewhat limited business model.

As already mentioned, it's really not about discussing a business
model, but about controlling virtual and real resources. In order to
do that you need different control interfaces for the various
stakeholders. Let's assume you (as VNO) need to reboot your virtual
router, because it crashed. Then your InP needs to provide access to the
virtual router in order to do that, no matter where it is currently
hosted in the substrate, but probably without exposing the current
mapping of virtual to substrate resources.
As InP you have the mapping information and can easily do this, maybe
using a different control interface. If you have a VNet spanning several
InP domains, you even need to find out first at which InP the virtual
router is currently hosted. This has implications for addressing
virtual resources in the control plane and so on. These are important
control plane aspects, not business model aspects.