[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[nvrg-bof] draft minutes from IETF 75 Stockholm NVRG BOF



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, all,

I unfortunately didn't recall who was keeping notes from the BOF, so I
created an initial draft below.

If anyone has more detailed or additional information, please post back.

Joe

- -----------------

Draft minutes (posted to the NVRG list for feedback)

NVRG BOF
July 28, 2009
IETF 75, Stockholm Sweden
Substitute chair: Joe Touch, USC/ISI <touch at isi.edu>
Minutes prepared by Joe Touch

There were 17 attendees, of which 5 were mailing list members.

We discussed the current draft charter, and suggestions for updates.

Issues discussed include:

- - OS vs. network virtualization
	the interaction between the two is probably relevant,
	but unclear to what extent

- - commercial virtualization support
	VMware, other software routers
	hardware router support
	IEEE standards for virtualization

- - relationship to other IETF virtualizations
	TRILL (L2) / LISP (L3) subnet encapsulation
	L2VPN / L3VPN / PPVPN
	tunnels
	VRRP (?)

- - virtualization extent
	core (PPVPN/TRILL/LISP) vs. E2E vs. component (host/router)

- - relationship to other efforts
	ITU-T future Internet
	FIND

	a question was raised as to whether we need or already have an
	ITU liason; I confirmed with Aaron Falk (IRTF Chair) that we
	do not have one nor do we need one. IRTF efforts do not reflect
	any official ISOC policy; we operate as individual groups

- - existing projects
	a number were mentioned, in addition to a summary published in
	IEEE Communications in July (as posted to the list)
	these would be addressed after the charter is finalized

Joe Touch led a discussion on the goal of the charter, and some basic
components that might streamline the current version, e.g.:
	1. explain/define what we mean by network virtualization
	2. explain what they're useful for
	3. describe some challenges
	4. list some milestones

He noted that #1 and #2 were in the charter only as needed for basic
context; full definitions would be developed as part of a document that
would be in the milestones.

Some candidate milestones were indicated:

	a. background/terminology
	b. common parts of NV architectures
	c. common problems/challenges in NV
	d. some solutions (per-problem perhaps)
	e. descriptions of appropriate uses

In parallel with such group documents, individual documents describing
existing research and testbeds could occur in parallel, but might not be
group documents.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqN4iIACgkQE5f5cImnZru7IgCfeQ7MK1dQ8EhCFACxI/V2rEJ8
RzkAoN6olcsA6muprvNJeL+l0eclyVnv
=O6G/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.