Subject: [vnrg] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer

From: Guillaume FORTAINE <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:11:38 +0100

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

---

From: Rob Sherwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:00:09 -0800

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 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> vnrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg
>

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:15:16 +0800

Hi Rob-

Glad to see you are on this list.  FYI, the research group meeting is scheduled for Friday 0900 - 1130 Beijing time.  Meetings are in general audiocast with jabber feedback channels so you are welcome to listen and participate if you'd like.  See http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/remote-participation.html.  In fact, modulo the chairs' approval, I believe it is not too late to request agenda time for yourself and webex is available for remote presentation.

--aaron

On 11/9/10 1:00 AM, Rob Sherwood wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Guillaume FORTAINE<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Hello,
>> For your information :
>> -Flowvisor :

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:14:44 +0000

Hi Rob, Aaron,

We have agenda time available, but no webex yet. Plus I have a half-dead laptop (spontaneous crashes), which might handling this hard or tricky for me (unless somebody else takes over that part). 

Thanks,

  Martin

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Aaron Falk
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:15 AM
> To: Rob Sherwood
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [vnrg] FlowVisor : A Network Virtualization Layer
> 
> Hi Rob-
> 
> Glad to see you are on this list.  FYI, the research group meeting is
> scheduled for Friday 0900 - 1130 Beijing time.  Meetings are in general
> audiocast with jabber feedback channels so you are welcome to listen
> and participate if you'd like.  See
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/remote-participation.html.  In fact,
> modulo the chairs' approval, I believe it is not too late to request
> agenda time for yourself and webex is available for remote
> presentation.
> 
> --aaron
>

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:16:05 +0000

Rob,

> (currently FlowVisor is restricted to subsets of the physical

Does this also exclude right now the aggregation of multiple links to one virtual link?

Thanks,

  Martin

> Rob Sherwood
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 6:00 PM
> To: Guillaume FORTAINE
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Rob Sherwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:57:21 -0800

> Does this also exclude right now the aggregation of multiple links to one virtual link?

Just so I understand you, you mean, for example, something like
channel bonding, where packets from one virtual link are load-balanced
across multiple physical links?

Right now, FlowVisor itself does not support this.  So, there are two
qualifications there: 1) this is just a limitation of the current
implementation and would be fairly trivial to add, and 2) one reason
why it's not currently implemented is that support for this is still
being added to the OpenFlow protocol (see the proposed OpenFlow 1.1
extensions off of openflow.org), so once that's in place, it will be
much cleaner to implement, architecturally speaking.   That, and no
one has asked for it :-)

I apologies, but it looks like I will be unable to join the
presentation (virtually or otherwise).  But I do appreciate the
conversation that has been taking place on the list and look forward
to continuing these dialogs.

- Rob
.