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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 06 July 2011 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 3A5E321F886F for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.902, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 XLEcG7YZavsb for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BF221F8871 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (pool-71-105-81-169.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.81.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p66FpiRb009114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E148490.8000006@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:51:44 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F01CED6E4D@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <4E142E69.5040606@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4E142E69.5040606@kit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
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 15:52:28 -0000

Hi, all,

(speaking as an individual participant)

On 7/6/2011 2:44 AM, Roland Bless wrote:
...
>> 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.

I agree, and don't see either as particularly relevant to VNs. They're 
implementation issues, AFAICT. The more relevant technology to me is 
router virtualization.

>> - 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.

Again, this is an implementation issue. I would expect some sort of 
indicator of VN, which can be buried inside an existing header or can 
require an additional header.

>> - 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.

IMO, a VPN extends an existing network to add a new node, or ties two 
existing networks together, i.e., it's a way to add a single private 
link to a new node.

Further, VPN nodes are always a member of exactly one VPN.

A PPVPN is a network provided by another party (the provider) so that 
users can join it via basically conventional VPN methods.

I don't think of VPNs as addressing either link or router multi-use, either.

None of this is true of VNs, IMO - a VN is a complete E2E network, can 
coexist with many other VNs (even to the same endpoint nodes), etc.

 > How do OpenFlow concepts fit
> into the classification?

IMO, Openflow is a tool; it does not define a network architecture. It 
can be useful in moving some network issues elsewhere (e.g., allowing a 
non-VPN capable node to join a VPN, or helping to implement router 
virtualization outside a router that doesn't support it). I don't see 
Openflow as anything other than one of many tools here - and one I've 
never needed to develop VNs (if others do, I'd be glad to hear why).

>> 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.

That seems to presume we know what an intra-provider VN is, and I'm not 
sure we're all on a single page there... ;-)

Joe