-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Kempf wrote: > I've actually heard the term "slices" apply to network as well as > computation resources. > > jak I have too, focusing on things like BW, not on addresses, interfaces, paths, etc. We have a name for that - an overlay or a virtual network. I've also heard people assert (incorrectly) that slices of existing systems (e.g., PlanetLab) included network virtualization. Given the confusion, the term slice may have clear meaning in a distributed OS, but does not in networking. I'd rather not use an ill-defined term that doesn't have a direct relation to the WG's work, esp. in the charter. Joe > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:10 PM >> To: James Kempf >> Cc: Martin Stiemerling; nvrg at listserv.gwdg.de >> Subject: Re: [nvrg-bof] Updated charter proposal >> > > > James Kempf wrote: >>>> Hi Joe, >>>> >>>> Thanx for the reply. Regarding: >>>> >>>>>> Currently, >>>>>> there is much work going on in GENI on control frameworks for >>>>>> provisioning a virtual aggregate (a network slice and compute >>>>>> resources). >>>>> This is not network virtualization. I.e., when we deal > with an OS, we >>>>> don't try to standardize the provisioning of memory, processing >>>>> capacity, etc. Processes don't ask for 20% of a CPU; they > just ask to >>>>> run. Processes don't ask for 20% of memory, they ask for > it in terms >>>>> they need (bytes). >>>>> Similarly, virtual networks ask for resources in terms they need >>>>> (addresses, links, and reserved link capacity, i.e., > provisioning). >>>>> We need a common way to express how to virtualize the > network (which >>>>> most "virtualization" systems don't really do anyway) > before we can >>>>> standardize how its resources are manged. >>>> GENI has the notion of RSPECs which I believe are designed to allow >>>> virtual network providers to ask for resources. There has also been >>>> some recent work in 4WARD along these lines. Are you saying > that the >>>> way these proposals are designed doesn't really address the need or >>>> perhaps that they need some modification? > RSPECs, like many things in GENI, focus on services and > computation - i.e., OS resources, not network resources > (e.g., addresses, interfaces, virtual links, etc.) - at least > according to the March 2008 slides I could find on the topic. > >>>> One of the issues we've been discussing here at ER is that there is >>>> already a collection of deployed data plane techniques to support >>>> network virtualization. For dedicated bandwith, the techniques run >>>> from dedicated lambdas up to MPLS LSPs in IP networks and PBB-TE >>>> tunnels in Metro Ethernet. For nondedicated bandwidth, > there are IP-IP >>>> tunnels, maybe one could even view HIP as a kind of tunnel. > Are these >>>> techniques insufficient? > There are lots of building blocks, and a few systems that > create network architectures out of them (which is more than > just the building blocks). > We need to develop a common framework for virtualizing the > *network*; then we can engage groups like GENI about how to > organize distributed resources on it. > >>>> If you grant that these techniques are sufficient, then the primary >>>> issue becomes how to construct a virtual network in a > cross provider >>>> way. This today, as far as I can determine, is impossible except if >>>> you run over IP. > It can be done at IP, MPLS, or ethernet, as well as some > other less ubiquitous ways today. > >>>> The issue you cite above, namely how to name and allocate > resources, >>>> is a big one, also interoperability between providers to allow the >>>> slices to be plumbed together. > Slices, AFAICT, refer to a group of (virtualized) OS > resources. It's not useful to talk about those resources > until the *network* resources are virtualized and coordinated. > >>>> There is also a question of >>>> timescale. Most providers require a timescale of days to set up a >>>> virtual network like a VPN. I believe the vision of most > researchers >>>> is such virtual networks to be available on demand. > You're jumping a few steps ahead. IMO, the steps are: > > - define a common virtual network framework > (what this BOF is for) > - determine how providers can offer VNFs as a service > - determine how to provision a VNF across providers > - integrate VNFs with slice reservation systems > > We're at step one here. > >>>> So our view on this is that the work is primarily needed in >>>> constructing a control plane that allows virtual network > slices to be >>>> constructed from resources obtained from different ISPs by > a virtual >>>> network provider. And then to connect the network resources > up to end >>>> host resources (which may involve clouds or end host virtual >>>> machines). This seems to me what GENI is trying to address, maybe >>>> Trilogy and Akari as well (I am not that familiar with them). > It's hard to consider discussing a control plane when we > haven't yet defined what to control. Slices don't include > network interfaces or addresses as a virtualized, localized > resources - that is the purpose of network virtualization, > and it is useful independently of a slice. So let's start by > decoupling the two, and solve the network virtualization > problem first. > > Joe >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkowCi8ACgkQE5f5cImnZrsDPgCgpiGM/b/Z+IK5ist1f9HkayVb 2SQAoJFFMYJ9fxVQQWS0BHYZMrayWIzP =jwt1 -----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.