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

Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu> Wed, 06 July 2011 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <roland.bless@kit.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 DA61021F85E0 for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 02:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xYdhRTbqhW45 for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 02:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3C521F85D9 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 02:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps port 25 id 1QeOeP-0000eo-Kg; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:44:17 +0200
Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=vorta.tm.kit.edu) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 id 1QeOeP-0000am-GW; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:44:09 +0200
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52F62A804CD; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:44:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E142E69.5040606@kit.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:44:09 +0200
From: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F01CED6E4D@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
In-Reply-To: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F01CED6E4D@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1309945457.754838000
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 09:44:21 -0000

Hi Martin,

On 06.07.2011 09:39, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> The subject line may be partly incorrect, but that is my current question: 
> Is the VNRG just dormant or has the overall interest in the work of RG passed away?

I think that the interest hasn't passed away, but maybe people were
probably busy with other stuff.

> 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. This doesn't allow

> - 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.

> - 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. How do OpenFlow concepts fit
into the classification?

> 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.

Regards,
 Roland