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

[Roland Bless <[e-mail]>]

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