-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Kempf wrote: ... > If there is any reason at all for an IETF-affiliated group on > virtualization, it has to do with interoperability, IMHO. Agreed, > 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. > I think the RG should focus on bringing together researchers in > different geographic areas to define interoperability between control > frameworks, and should include both nonprofit operators and for-profit > operators, vendors, and researchers. That sounds like unifying network management before we have specified an Internet protocol suite or host or gateway requirements. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkov0JQACgkQE5f5cImnZrvGywCeNr5il0eLTJsLI1yd7HsL2GRF MCUAoNWqaVD3ByWmD0HTYOtcJCj4JEj1 =MTRi -----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.