Re: [vnrg] Status of the VNRG: Dormant or dead?

[Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling at neclab.eu>]

Hi Roland, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Bless [mailto:roland.bless at kit.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:44 AM
> To: Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: vnrg at irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [vnrg] Status of the VNRG: Dormant or dead?
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 06.07.2011 09:39, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> > The subject line may be partly incorrect, but that is my current question:
> > Is the VNRG just dormant or has the overall interest in the work of RG
> passed away?
> 
> I think that the interest hasn't passed away, but maybe people were
> probably busy with other stuff.

That is good to know and what I actually have hoped for.

> 
> > We had the last meeting at the Beijing IETF meeting and also some lively
> discussion afterwards.
> >
> > One of the areas of discussion was (amongst many others):
> > - openflow vs. forces
> > - how forces would fit in virtual networks
> 
> I see both technologies mainly focused on control plane / data plane
> separation. This doesn't allow

What doesn't it allow for? The sentence ends very early.

> 
> > - do we need tunnel headers for virtual networks on the wire or not?
> 
> That depends on the substrate technology, some allow to embed a "VNet
> Tag" to identify different virtual links, e.g., VLAN-Tags in Ethernet headers.

Right, and my usage of the word deader is probably wrong, as there may be other technologies which use a different light color and not a header to distinguish a VN. 

> 
> > - definition of acid tests
> 
> Not only definition of acid tests, but also definition of terms. For instance,
> how differ traditional VPNs from Virtual Networks in the context of network
> virtualization? IMHO current VPN solutions concentrate mainly on virtual
> links, advanced concepts consider virtual nodes as active elements. How do
> OpenFlow concepts fit into the classification?

True. Especially VPNs have been discussed multiple times, probably writing this up in a note. 

> 
> > What do you see is important for the RG right now or what is missing?
> 
> See above, but maybe we should also consider questions such as what
> interfaces and protocols are needed for creating inter-provider virtual
> networks.

Ok, I see. 

My question wrt the above paragraph: 
Should the RG run the phase of defining terms, concepts and acid tests in parallel to other questions? We emphasized on a strong phased operational model for the RG until now, but I could imagine a more relaxed operational mode. 

Regards,

  Martin