Hello, Apologies that I was not able to attend the working group meeting, but thanks for the interest on FlowVisor. I flipped through the slides at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/VNRG-0.pdf and at least from the slides (I'm not sure how the presentation/discussion about these slides went) I think there might be a few things that need clarification: In most of the flowvisor literature, we're very careful to describe this as "network *slicing*" as opposed to "network virtualization". The key differences (as brought out in the slides) is that current, FlowVisor does not support: - two slices controlling the same virtual address space (e.g., 10.0.0.0/24) but the flowvisor rewriting them to different physical addresses - network topologies that are independent of the physical topology (currently FlowVisor is restricted to subsets of the physical topology) Both of these points are limits of the current implementation, but not of the design, and my thoughts for the future are to take FV towards implementing these points. If anyone is interested in learning more about FlowVisor or its deployments as part of GENI, please let me know. Thanks again for the interest, - Rob . On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Guillaume FORTAINE <gfortaine at live.com> wrote: > > Hello, > For your information : > -Flowvisor : > http://www.usenix.org/events/osdi/tech/slides/sherwood.pdf > http://www.deutsche-telekom-laboratories.de/~robert/flowvisor-osdi10.pdf > http://www.openflow.org/wk/index.php/FlowVisor > > Best Regards, > Guillaume FORTAINE > > _______________________________________________ > 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.