Re: [vnrg] Towards a Virtual Network definition

Dae Young KIM <> Thu, 17 February 2011 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D1F3A6C26 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:15:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxjfxrcBJzp0 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA363A6C21 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vxa40 with SMTP id 40so870954vxa.13 for <>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:16:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=/TRm4+YpmyIxi3YT494uKAdLC5i96NV0xGn/S/VsW1A=; b=hR2ScMNyDEpS/ZOlz+sxVFUaLl+yJQ1aCvcXOFUfsF6Y3s9FYC6UDg5l1UJycNGwJz CMzBdTo8IzUFkbwPQ82XA0o6fZzK+s5tloeCeWpvpFltIG9pQaY0qjeKVGLsfl2uX55T +It8Up3ELhs2ivW7p6XrBxScBDpgR9EtU6dWE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=IsoD2kCtFzGT6AtWVmlm3Z4qBtvf1rlcir8+QpA3PgEHf/SFq+KAvZT9ydDvR2pQTf h6L5LwCbTMoGAK7BHgUe4OheV0R2TlINEG32rcCBKmP/YjJ8uNNjgT0v6yfPmmVcTsUB HEXpabEUmv0SW+BiwzvTPaCEa3ZGNqLgeAYZE=
Received: by with SMTP id zp4mr2935vdb.154.1297912584745; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:16:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:16:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Dae Young KIM <>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:16:04 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yngmWMx4VHdebW-iuHtg4DL6SY8
Message-ID: <>
To: Roland Bless <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53f8dfb903256049c71d212
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:00:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [vnrg] Towards a Virtual Network definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:15:56 -0000

Hi, Roland,

Long time no see.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Roland Bless <> 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.