Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] [e2e] j'accuse NFV

From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 20:10:37 +0000

--Apple-Mail=_8EC8218A-630C-4B72-B46B-3E60798156DF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii

Hi,

Reading Jon's accusation I see it based on two wrong assumptions about =
what NFV is about:

"a) off the box built by a middlebox expert". So this implies that =
middlebox experts won't participate in the development of VNFs? Most =
middlebox experts I am aware of are precisely software experts, and many =
of the current, expert-made middleboxes, already run on top of platforms =
suitable to be virtualized. I'd say there is a great opportunity for =
middlebox experts to explore new ways of building and combining their =
software, and proposing new ways of using them.

"b) off the direct path". This comes from a very common misunderstanding =
about NFV being "bringing network functions to the cloud". NFV intends =
to bring cloud principles to network service development, provision and =
management, but it was soon clear in the first experiments we run long =
time ago that we have to adapt those principles and, in despite of what =
some voices claimed, go well beyond the so-called "telco cloud". That's =
why I insisted in how we had to go beyond current OpenStack when I =
presented OpenMANO at the last NFVRG meeting, and it is one of the =
reasons why we believe that something like NFVRG is needed.

So, apart from the n-th plan of telcos in their landgrabbing of Internet =
stuff (one of the obvious and permanent goals of us all telco evil =
minions), I see in NFV interesting opportunities for re-thinking how we =
build networks and the services running on them.

Be goode,=20

On 29 Apr 2015, at 14:46 , Djamel Sadok <[email-masked]> wrote:

>=20
> added value is gained by combining / orchestrating both planes. NFV =
may open the way to open network hardware and OS and perhaps cheaper =
one.  Software development is faster/cheaper than a new hardware =
project. Take multicast, just like LDP, a controller may distribute on =
demand multicast capable functions to dynamically form an overlay =
instead of relying on hardware that supports multicast. Even better, a =
node may self-appoint itself with such function.
>=20
> Djamel
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Eggert, Lars <[email-masked]> wrote:
> CC'ing the NFVRG, since they may have some opinions here :-)
>=20
> On 2015-4-29, at 11:34, Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]> =
wrote:
> >
> > Try as I might, I cannot really see Network Function Virtualization =
as much
> > more than yet another telco landgrab on internet stuff. But somewhat =
more
> > critically, I vew the idea of taking some of our precious middle =
bodily
> > fluid flow processing functions, and moving them a) off the box =
built by a
> > middlebox expert, and b) off the direct path, as actually
> > counter-productive. Lets just take three boring =
run-of-the-arithmetic-mill
> > such services:-
> >
> > load balancer - this is on the latency critical path before you get =
to any
> > service - additional latency/hops/virtualization overhead is
> > counter-indicated by any sane business model
> >
> > wan accelerator - especially for 2.9x-4.8xG wireless data networking
> > services - these are kind of rather localized by definition, right? =
I mean
> > they are dealing with impedance mis-matches in the interweb (tcp =
splice,
> > etc - see
> > https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/publication_details?n=3D3730
> >
> > firewall (or ids) - so these sit on trust boundaries, so it seems =
like a
> > reduction in security to move them anywhere (like above a =
hypervisor,
> > unless people are running, say, seL4:-), plus they might also be =
protecting
> > the infrastructure itself as well as customers, so it would seem
> > counter-productive to increase their attach surface in any way
> >
> > So ok, not all virtualization involves moving stuff to a different =
location
> > often. But it does also imply some resource pooling (i.e. more than =
1
> > instance of a Foo in the NFooV is running above the hyperv) - so =
this seems
> > like you might be buying into a wealth of pain with elasticity, when =
you
> > had just nailed down super-hard multiplexed allocation of cycles for
> > forwarding or filtering or protocol adaptation or responsive =
redirection
> > etc etc...
> >
> > I guess if you are in the business of proxies (web content caches =
etc) then
> > it might make sense, but then it isn't really a Network Function =
that is
> > being virtualized - its just you have some server blades running xen
> > or vmware or clickos or mirageOS or whatever with an HTTPd on them
> >
> > - err, so next, will we be running IP forwarding virtualized? oh, =
no,
> > wait, thats just a, um VPN...
> >
> > so if the telco folks do manage to Virtualize all those annoying =
middle
> > boxes Netwreck Functions, perhaps they could just cause them all to
> > evaporate and restore the sublime end-to-end internet
> > goodness....carrier-degrade, surely?
> >
> > j
> > http://openmirage.org/
> > http://cnp.neclab.eu/clickos/
> > https://sel4.systems/
> > etc
> > _______________________________________________
> > end2end-interest mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> > Contact [email-masked] for assistance.
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> end2end-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> Contact [email-masked] for assistance.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Nfvrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

--Apple-Mail=_8EC8218A-630C-4B72-B46B-3E60798156DF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset=us-ascii

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: =
after-white-space;">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Reading Jon's accusation I =
see it based on two wrong assumptions about what NFV is =
about:</div><div><br></div><div>"a) off the box built by a middlebox =
expert". So this implies that middlebox experts won't participate in the =
development of VNFs? Most middlebox experts I am aware of are precisely =
software experts, and many of the current, expert-made middleboxes, =
already run on top of platforms suitable to be virtualized. I'd say =
there is a great opportunity for middlebox experts to explore new ways =
of building and combining their software, and proposing new ways of =
using them.</div><div><br></div><div>"b) off the direct path". This =
comes from a very common misunderstanding about NFV being "bringing =
network functions to the cloud". NFV intends to bring cloud principles =
to network service development, provision and management, but it was =
soon clear in the first experiments we run long time ago that we have to =
adapt those principles and, in despite of what some voices claimed, go =
well beyond the so-called "telco cloud". That's why I insisted in how we =
had to go beyond current OpenStack when I presented OpenMANO at the last =
NFVRG meeting, and it is one of the reasons why we believe that =
something like NFVRG is needed.</div><div><br></div><div>So, apart from =
the n-th plan of telcos in their landgrabbing of Internet stuff (one of =
the obvious and permanent goals of us all telco evil minions), I see in =
NFV interesting opportunities for re-thinking how we build networks and =
the services running on them.</div><div><br></div><div>Be =
goode,&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 29 Apr 2015, at 14:46 =
, Djamel Sadok &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>&gt; =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br></div>added value is =
gained by combining / orchestrating both planes. NFV may open the way to =
open network hardware and OS and perhaps cheaper one.&nbsp; Software =
development is faster/cheaper than a new hardware project. Take =
multicast, just like LDP, a controller may distribute on demand =
multicast capable functions to dynamically form an overlay instead of =
relying on hardware that supports multicast. Even better, a node may =
self-appoint itself with such =
function.<br><br></div>Djamel<br><br></div><div =
class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 29, =
2015 at 8:24 AM, Eggert, Lars <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" =
target=3D"_blank">[email-masked]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; =
border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); =
border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: =
auto;">CC'ing the NFVRG, since they may have some opinions here :-)<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On 2015-4-29, at 11:34, Jon Crowcroft &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Try as I might, I cannot really see Network Function Virtualization =
as much<br>
&gt; more than yet another telco landgrab on internet stuff. But =
somewhat more<br>
&gt; critically, I vew the idea of taking some of our precious middle =
bodily<br>
&gt; fluid flow processing functions, and moving them a) off the box =
built by a<br>
&gt; middlebox expert, and b) off the direct path, as actually<br>
&gt; counter-productive. Lets just take three boring =
run-of-the-arithmetic-mill<br>
&gt; such services:-<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; load balancer - this is on the latency critical path before you get =
to any<br>
&gt; service - additional latency/hops/virtualization overhead is<br>
&gt; counter-indicated by any sane business model<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; wan accelerator - especially for 2.9x-4.8xG wireless data =
networking<br>
&gt; services - these are kind of rather localized by definition, right? =
I mean<br>
&gt; they are dealing with impedance mis-matches in the interweb (tcp =
splice,<br>
&gt; etc - see<br>
&gt; <a =
href=3D"https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/publication_details?n=3D3730" =
target=3D"_blank">https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/publication_details?n=
=3D3730</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; firewall (or ids) - so these sit on trust boundaries, so it seems =
like a<br>
&gt; reduction in security to move them anywhere (like above a =
hypervisor,<br>
&gt; unless people are running, say, seL4:-), plus they might also be =
protecting<br>
&gt; the infrastructure itself as well as customers, so it would =
seem<br>
&gt; counter-productive to increase their attach surface in any way<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; So ok, not all virtualization involves moving stuff to a different =
location<br>
&gt; often. But it does also imply some resource pooling (i.e. more than =
1<br>
&gt; instance of a Foo in the NFooV is running above the hyperv) - so =
this seems<br>
&gt; like you might be buying into a wealth of pain with elasticity, =
when you<br>
&gt; had just nailed down super-hard multiplexed allocation of cycles =
for<br>
&gt; forwarding or filtering or protocol adaptation or responsive =
redirection<br>
&gt; etc etc...<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I guess if you are in the business of proxies (web content caches =
etc) then<br>
&gt; it might make sense, but then it isn't really a Network Function =
that is<br>
&gt; being virtualized - its just you have some server blades running =
xen<br>
&gt; or vmware or clickos or mirageOS or whatever with an HTTPd on =
them<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; - err, so next, will we be running IP forwarding virtualized? oh, =
no,<br>
&gt; wait, thats just a, um VPN...<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; so if the telco folks do manage to Virtualize all those annoying =
middle<br>
&gt; boxes Netwreck Functions, perhaps they could just cause them all =
to<br>
&gt; evaporate and restore the sublime end-to-end internet<br>
&gt; goodness....carrier-degrade, surely?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; j<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://openmirage.org/" =
target=3D"_blank">http://openmirage.org/</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://cnp.neclab.eu/clickos/" =
target=3D"_blank">http://cnp.neclab.eu/clickos/</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://sel4.systems/" =
target=3D"_blank">https://sel4.systems/</a><br>
&gt; etc<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; end2end-interest mailing list<br>
&gt; <a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a=
><br>
&gt; <a =
href=3D"http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest" =
target=3D"_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-inter=
est</a><br>
&gt; Contact <a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> for =
assistance.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
end2end-interest mailing list<br>
<a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest" =
target=3D"_blank">http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-inter=
est</a><br>
Contact <a href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a>=
 for assistance.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Nfvrg mailing =
list<br><a =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a><br>https://www.irtf.org/=
mailman/listinfo/nfvrg<br></blockquote></div><br><div =
apple-content-edited=3D"true">
<div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: =
auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; =
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: =
after-white-space;">--<br>"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor =
Infierno"<br><br>Dr Diego R. Lopez<br>Telefonica I+D<br><a =
href=3D"http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/">http://people.tid.es/diego.lope=
z/</a><br><br>e-mail: [email-masked]<br>Tel: &nbsp; =
&nbsp;+34 913 129 041<br>Mobile: +34 682 051 =
091<br>----------------------------------</div>

</div>
<br></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_8EC8218A-630C-4B72-B46B-3E60798156DF--

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

---

From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 20:11:11 +0000

Hi,

Reading Jon's accusation I see it based on two wrong assumptions about what NFV is about:

"a) off the box built by a middlebox expert". So this implies that middlebox experts won't participate in the development of VNFs? Most middlebox experts I am aware of are precisely software experts, and many of the current, expert-made middleboxes, already run on top of platforms suitable to be virtualized. I'd say there is a great opportunity for middlebox experts to explore new ways of building and combining their software, and proposing new ways of using them.

"b) off the direct path". This comes from a very common misunderstanding about NFV being "bringing network functions to the cloud". NFV intends to bring cloud principles to network service development, provision and management, but it was soon clear in the first experiments we run long time ago that we have to adapt those principles and, in despite of what some voices claimed, go well beyond the so-called "telco cloud". That's why I insisted in how we had to go beyond current OpenStack when I presented OpenMANO at the last NFVRG meeting, and it is one of the reasons why we believe that something like NFVRG is needed.

So, apart from the n-th plan of telcos in their landgrabbing of Internet stuff (one of the obvious and permanent goals of us all telco evil minions), I see in NFV interesting opportunities for re-thinking how we build networks and the services running on them.

Be goode,

On 29 Apr 2015, at 14:46 , Djamel Sadok <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

added value is gained by combining / orchestrating both planes. NFV may open the way to open network hardware and OS and perhaps cheaper one.  Software development is faster/cheaper than a new hardware project. Take multicast, just like LDP, a controller may distribute on demand multicast capable functions to dynamically form an overlay instead of relying on hardware that supports multicast. Even better, a node may self-appoint itself with such function.

Djamel

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Eggert, Lars <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
CC'ing the NFVRG, since they may have some opinions here :-)

On 2015-4-29, at 11:34, Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> Try as I might, I cannot really see Network Function Virtualization as much
> more than yet another telco landgrab on internet stuff. But somewhat more
> critically, I vew the idea of taking some of our precious middle bodily
> fluid flow processing functions, and moving them a) off the box built by a
> counter-productive. Lets just take three boring run-of-the-arithmetic-mill
> such services:-
>
> load balancer - this is on the latency critical path before you get to any
> services - these are kind of rather localized by definition, right? I mean
> they are dealing with impedance mis-matches in the interweb (tcp splice,
> etc - see
> https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/publication_details?n=3730
>
> firewall (or ids) - so these sit on trust boundaries, so it seems like a
> reduction in security to move them anywhere (like above a hypervisor,
> unless people are running, say, seL4:-), plus they might also be protecting
> So ok, not all virtualization involves moving stuff to a different location
> often. But it does also imply some resource pooling (i.e. more than 1
> instance of a Foo in the NFooV is running above the hyperv) - so this seems
> like you might be buying into a wealth of pain with elasticity, when you
> forwarding or filtering or protocol adaptation or responsive redirection
> etc etc...
>
> I guess if you are in the business of proxies (web content caches etc) then
> it might make sense, but then it isn't really a Network Function that is
> - err, so next, will we be running IP forwarding virtualized? oh, no,
> so if the telco folks do manage to Virtualize all those annoying middle
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
> Contact [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> for assistance.

_______________________________________________
end2end-interest mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
Contact [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> for assistance.

_______________________________________________
Nfvrg mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D

e-mail: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 05:27:24 +0000

+1 … and I note this only because I was so surprised by Jon’s comments.

NFV  is a key element in a set of interrelated evolutions (SDN, SFC, intent-driven PBMN, MANO, etc.)  that together enable network services virtualization (NSV), which, in turn, enables new business models with benefits in CapEx and OpEx savings for providers and in mission effectiveness for consumers … (http://opennetworkingusergroup.com/realizing-the-vision-of-network-services-virtualization-the-role-of-solution-architecture/).

Avanti,
BobN

From: Nfvrg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 4:11 PM
To: Eggert, Lars
Cc: [email-masked]; Jon Crowcroft; Djamel Sadok; Enders Game Emporium
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] [e2e] j'accuse NFV

Hi,

Be goode,

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D