[vnrg] Some more Acid tests & VN principles

Sunay Tripathi <sunay.tripathi@gmail.com> Tue, 09 November 2010 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sunay.tripathi@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 A9E8F3A686C for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:23:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 2QBNcDqZZn-c for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:23:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DA43A6867 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:23:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so391457pwi.13 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:24:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QglgWNGoA6o3mkyaMhG5kG9/lQBVwOnXbSN4rKKudxo=; b=S+FQJKd4sepFMY2245aVPV5il38r3ZPEph7IotvV3BipJwTlhW+2tdQk0OlynNjzcm N2th4vbS9rLGOIAf0O7Tul7mjBYU41DO/78snat1SE8/oMNtrYcuOlZrTHbEGG+sNALT qGSM+B1hvSXOVtDJrl4lNB3MEzTghXj1BfuNQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=X6fvpTTBjkFd+1ssVrs6ZCCZjtYwoiaYl84EB/wX6LJTnFTQSOIGzYWC/yori4PJsP 8JgQjgsXA6LIpNDcP3gpabv/+Yx1EKwK1OiGyeIFpkVqftMi1sdSHzu/gyfUfybDHDyX AfRqzrwIiLoDbvpo/R+XegEkrZVJZw9rNi+8A=
Received: by 10.142.134.4 with SMTP id h4mr6684134wfd.4.1289330651497; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:24:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (173-164-164-42-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.164.164.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4sm2065909wfd.9.2010.11.09.11.24.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CD99BDD.2050208@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:07:09 -0800
From: Sunay Tripathi <sunay.tripathi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100214 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vnrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [vnrg] Some more Acid tests & VN principles
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, 09 Nov 2010 19:23:47 -0000

So looking at the Acid tests so far and VN principles, it seems like
we need to tighten the isolation case a bit more. Specifically, just
putting a Virtual Output Queue (VoQ) per VN on each link to provide
isolation is not cutting it. The isolation (which translates
into per packet latency and B/W) needs to be on a VN fabric level
rather than on individual link level. Basically the VN should
mirror the non virtualized physical network of same capacity i.e.
a VN for 1Gbps on a 10Gbps network should see same or better
behavior than if it was on a physical 1Gbps switch fabric by
itself. This does need the network elements like switches and
routers to do more work.

Robert, not sure if you are on the VNRG mailing list but this
would be a good place for some of the things we were discussing
related to what we are building.

The other thing is related to management. A VN administrator
needs to be able to administer his resources and name space
independently.

But the issue that is bogging us down is what is the non virtualized
part that ties entities to VN and allows the H/W to enforce the
virtualization - is it the MAC address? Is it the VLAN? The problem
with VLAN is that most hosts don't support Q-in-Q. Do people
have thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Sunay