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

[Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu>]

Hi, all,

(speaking as an individual participant)

On 7/6/2011 2:44 AM, Roland Bless wrote:
...
> > 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.

I agree, and don't see either as particularly relevant to VNs. They're 
implementation issues, AFAICT. The more relevant technology to me is 
router virtualization.

> > - 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.

Again, this is an implementation issue. I would expect some sort of 
indicator of VN, which can be buried inside an existing header or can 
require an additional header.

> > - 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.

IMO, a VPN extends an existing network to add a new node, or ties two 
existing networks together, i.e., it's a way to add a single private 
link to a new node.

Further, VPN nodes are always a member of exactly one VPN.

A PPVPN is a network provided by another party (the provider) so that 
users can join it via basically conventional VPN methods.

I don't think of VPNs as addressing either link or router multi-use, either.

None of this is true of VNs, IMO - a VN is a complete E2E network, can 
coexist with many other VNs (even to the same endpoint nodes), etc.

> How do OpenFlow concepts fit
> into the classification?

IMO, Openflow is a tool; it does not define a network architecture. It 
can be useful in moving some network issues elsewhere (e.g., allowing a 
non-VPN capable node to join a VPN, or helping to implement router 
virtualization outside a router that doesn't support it). I don't see 
Openflow as anything other than one of many tools here - and one I've 
never needed to develop VNs (if others do, I'd be glad to hear why).

> > 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.

That seems to presume we know what an intra-provider VN is, and I'm not 
sure we're all on a single page there... ;-)

Joe