Good points. a) I think if we delete the first sentence "Conventionally ... characteristics." It would read better. The second sentence is a succinct description of the virtualization domain, as it stands now. b) Virtualization provides abstraction rather than hiding. And in some cases, it provides direct path to the underlying hardware as well (for performance and other reasons) c) I think programmability is orthogonal to virtualization. IMHO, virtualization should be dealing with declarative constructs which then are provisioned and configured by the underlying network. d) Yep, second paragraph in section 1.1 is a little mixed. If programmability needs to be addressed, it should be a new section with appropriate details. e) In section 2, elasticity should be mentioned and described. The last paragraph touches upon it. But need a little more elaboration f) In section 3, SLAs and limits are mentioned, but distributed across couple of bullet points. Would be good to aggregate them g) Would like to see the virtualization requirements be described on a layered scale of orchestration-automation-provisioning-configuration - that way we can separate appropriate paradigms at the right context for example programmability from abstraction h) Also at some point we need to look from the data-control-management planes Cheers <k/> -----Original Message----- From: vnrg-bounces at irtf.org [mailto:vnrg-bounces at irtf.org] On Behalf Of Didier Colle Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:20 AM To: Martin Stiemerling Cc: vnrg at irtf.org Subject: Re: [vnrg] Review of draft-shin-virtualization-meta-arch-01.txt Dear Martin, all, My two cents in this discussion. Martin Stiemerling wrote: > [writing as individual RG member and not as chair] > > Dear all, > > Here is a brief review of draft-shin-virtualization-meta-arch-01.txt. > > - Section 1, 1st paragraph: this describes abstraction but not virtualization. > Would you then say that abstraction is a key tool to realizing virtualization? And what would then be definition of "virtualization"? E.g., creating "virtual things/instances"? To my feeling, "virtualization" means creating "virtual things" by "abstracting away the real things (infrastructure)". Hmm... this might become a pretty "artificial" discussion... Although I tend to agree with the text that virtualization bottom-line always boils down to abstraction of the physical infrastructure, I disagree with the statement in the text: "... or end users can interact with those resources WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS." * For example, in an IP/WDM scenario the overlaid IP network(s) is(/are) virtual networks but still the IP routing protocols running in this(/these) virtual IP networks needs to be aware of possible SRLGs. Thus "without knowledge" does not seem correct to me, "with limited ABSTRACTED knowledge" seems more appropriate to me. * Is this compliant with the statement in section 1.1 "When combined with programmability feature in network elements, USERS of virtual networks CAN PROGRAM the network elements on any layers FROM PHYSICAL LAYER to application layer according to users' requirements." How do you program the physical layer WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING about that physical layer? > - Section 1, page 3, bullet list: how does this related to VNs? > - Section 1.1: too narrow for VN and it mixes VNs with programmable networks. > Euh... well, to me programmability is a key requirement for virtual networks. Perhaps programmability should not be mixed in section 1.1, but to my understanding it is missing from the requirements section 3. > - Section 2: First para: de-ossification may be one motivation but is in IMHO not the motiviation. > - Section 2: VNs are not necessarily programmable networks. > Again I would not exclude programmability from the requirements. When having a Software-Defined Radio infrastructure, it should be possible to create SDR virtual network instances. When having an infrastructure based on NetFPGA-alike hardware, it should be possible to create FPGA-programmable virtual network instances (e.g., part of the FPGA footprint). > - Section 3: The requirements are too high-level. It would be good to get more detailed requirements and where (from what system) these requirements are. > Some thoughts: * A system managing the virtual instances is needed. * The infrastructure should provide a standardized interface/api to such system. * An interface between that mgmt system and the user: giving user ABSTRACTED info on capabilities of the infrastructure over which he wants to create a virtual instance (e.g., is it programmable, or do you have only a limited number of combinations of "lego bricks"?) Information on the config/mgmt interface of the virtual network (element) instance(s), ... information on the subset of resources that were assigned to a virtual network instance (e.g., a virtual network instance might have been assigned a certain set of VLAN-IDs that he only he can use) * Enforcement of isolation * Enforcement of performance guarantees Kind regards, Didier > - Section 4: It's too high-level. A good use case would describe a VN use case and the resulting challenges and requirements > > I personally do not yet see this document to be the RG problem statement draft at this point of time. > > The draft misses some important points: > - what are some use cases you have in mind (system and what it does) > - e.g., testbed virtualization, operator-scale, Internet-scale, etc? > - what components are you using > - how do these components interact > - what about the existing work, e.g., VPNs, L2 link bundling technologies, virtual routers > - what are the problems? > > In general: I do not yet see that this draft is really a problem statement. It makes a start and its worth keep working on it, but needs more thoughts and discussions. > > Martin > > > martin.stiemerling at neclab.eu > > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division > NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 > > > _______________________________________________ > vnrg mailing list > vnrg at irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg > -- Didier Colle Ghent University - IMEC - IBBT Department of Information Technology (INTEC) Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Gent (Ledeberg) Email: didier.colle at intec.UGent.be MSN: didiercolle at hotmail.com Skype: didiercolle Tel. +32 9 331 4970 Fax. +32 9 331 4899 Mobile: +32 473 295655 WWW: www.ibcn.intec.UGent.be _______________________________________________ vnrg mailing list vnrg at irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.