But I don't think network virtualization scheme implies certain
mechanisms (e.g., tunneling, manipulation of headers, etc.).
Mosharaf's definition looks about right. We could probably factor out
the mention of "providers", since network virtualization doesn't
necessarily imply a distinction between the providers of physical
infrastructure are distinct from those creating the virtual networks.
To me, the keys are (1) Sharing and (2) Exposing abstractions that
provide the appearance of running on the physical network itself.
-Nick
I would say that if you think of service providers (SPs) and infrastructure providers (InPs) as roles instead of entities then it gets simpler. In this case, any entity can assume the role of either an SP or an InP or both. When a particular entity wants to create a VN, requiring certain characteristics, it will contact other entities that have InP roles and can provide required guarantees.
In the beginning, the entities that actually own the physical networks can only have InP roles and all others entities must be SPs. Once some SPs create some VNs, they can assume the role of (virtual) InPs for other SPs, resulting in a hierarchy of roles. This will also ensure the much needed abstraction i.e. all the interactions are between SP interfaces of entities and InP interfaces of some other entities and each SP will be under the impression that the InP who is leasing resources is the real deal, which in reality may or may not be true.
Moreover, at every step of the hierarchy each entity can add some value to the product (!), which will eventually drive the NV economy.
In addition, having two major roles should also be helpful for management purposes. Once we have lines drawn between the management domains for each of the roles, I believe, it might get easier to manage them; or may be not. But having a monolithic management structure is never a good idea.
I would like to add that any better terms for SPs and InPs or any other ways to express the very idea would be great. I just got used to using these terms and now I am stuck with them, even though they seem a bit crass for most people's taste.
And thanks everyone for such a lively debate. :)
-Mosharaf
"To V or not to V that is the question."