[vnrg] IETF Virtual network

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 13 January 2011 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vnrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033BA3A68A8 for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:49:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.464
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0eiTSaqnC0n for <vnrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBA43A68A3 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:49:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so4690686wwi.1 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:52:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=fcTqhwLeM6ciAqQelmuuVDPujdfe8x2i9c4WImlVF6k=; b=rUkvBV6AkL1NPej/K9L6sNUIRg24SzWQdNhxABTkrn+F9f1a/CLZlEa+LI9yD3NsVt ME4rntCp4s1EBf1NmRO6thi28f7oR20DsMP8HC5ihTrqQhqm+j2YUqSBMk7QWD5E7Dxt MobWoHPsLkAmWyPFYSbZoqX9NTvj7NnEtZu6I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=BlEPm70Gl4VCuXBbwIjwTWtEgox9VZpga++9bDgWjogmGxLpmQ5YrwVTjFfLHpVou2 qX14mUW/MsP6BvXw4FM90LDVYtT1QkEfWAjRHH6u09dygSBmF+Y7HVBYuNeFlknDhQ7J pCRZKjlJyFRLTz/wD6W1zEt1CiTwbqurgNxuc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id b10mr206549wem.75.1294894320072; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:52:00 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimTvpB4W=6u5J7kVfNCF6uKx3pj+rOP6fLrQEDU@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: sunay.tripathi@pluribusnetworks.com, robert.drost@pluribusnetworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: vnrg@irtf.org
Subject: [vnrg] IETF Virtual network
X-BeenThere: vnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <vnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:49:41 -0000

Hi Sunay/ Robert,

I looked at your presentation at the IETF. You seem to talk about
cloud but seem to be talking more specfically about IaaS.

1. Most current cloud providers (Amazon, Microsoft) charge based on
the number and duration of instances in the servers. Google is the
only one for its AppEngine charges on basis of CPU.

2. Amazon has the Route53 - DNS service, for which they charge.

3. I am not sure what you mean by things like MAC-in-MAC becomes
complicated? It is an existing functionality. TRILL (of which I am one
of the authors) is something that seems to be in development by most
network device providers.

4. Cloud customers most want security and protection of data. (I can
exchange the link where I found this data) They then want reliablity,
performance and cost. Besides that there are issues with regulatory

5. We can use VLAN, or L2 ACL's for partitioning however there can be
issues of spoofing in some cases.

6. I do not see a reason why we will not allow an operator to Layer-2
virtual network over the substrate layer.

7. I think though OpenFlow is provided, I know most vendors are
working on/ already provided providing open API's over which anything
can run not just OpenFlow.

8. You have not talked about QoS at all in the presentation.

9. Though I agree SNMP can be a way to program varied devices, I think
NetConf or something similar based on XML will be more helpful.