Re: [vnrg] Towards a Virtual Network definition

[Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Roland,

Long time no see.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Roland Bless <[e-mail]> wrote:

 Protocols running _inside_ the virtual topology are
> typically layer 3 protocols, therefore we speak of
> Network Virtualization (virtualization at the network layer,
> and virtual nodes are thus virtual routers)
>

Are we sure about this? As a experimenter, I'd also be interested in
virtualization of entities deeper in the layer, that is, virtualization of
even L2 and L1.

'Network' we're talking about here would not merely mean 'Network Layer' in
the OSI sense, but mean more of generic 'network' realm compassing from
Physical upwards even up to Transport or beyond.

Question: does the host "belong" to the VNet topology or
> not? IMHO, it is the same situation as in the Internet today:
> hosts are part of the network but don't belong to an
> ISPs infrastructure, i.e., they are attached to the
> access routers/switches etc.
>

A host might be just one type of nodes in networking, i.e., stub node. A
router, on the other hand might represent another type of node, i.e., a
relay node.

With this notion, I'd think 'hosts' could also belong to the VNet topology.

-- 
DY