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

Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization

From: Roland Bless <roland.bless at kit.edu>
To: "Monique Morrow (mmorrow)" <mmorrow at cisco.com>
Cc: vnrg at irtf.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:51:18 +0200
In-reply-to: <317616CE96204D49B5A1811098BA89500278772A at XMB-AMS-110.cisco.com>
References: <4C5139C6.9020300 at kit.edu> <4C513B95.2080804 at tid.es> <317616CE96204D49B5A1811098BA89500278772A at XMB-AMS-110.cisco.com>
List-id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <vnrg.irtf.org>

Hi Monique,

On 29.07.2010 10:40, Monique Morrow (mmorrow) wrote:
> Further to layering vs virtualization is the issue of "control"  :
> implication of administrative domains  [inter-domain] -- or is it
> relevant?

IMHO this is highly relevant when considering setting up virtual
links across the substrate of different Infrastructure Provider
(InP) Domains, whereas for setting up virtual nodes it is less
relevant, except for the case when you want to move virtual nodes
between different InP domains.

Regards,
 Roland

References:
- [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
  - From: Roland Bless
- Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
  - From: Pedro Andrés Aranda Gutiérrez
- Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
  - From: Monique Morrow (mmorrow)

Prev by Date: Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
Next by Date: Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
Previous by thread: Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
Next by thread: Re: [vnrg] Layering vs. virtualization
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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