On 24/04/2012 21:04, Adrian Farrel wrote:
NVO3 will document the problem statement, the applicability, and an
architectural framework for DCVPNs within a data center
environment. Within this framework, functional blocks will be defined to
allow the dynamic attachment / detachment of VMs to their DCVPN,
and the interconnection of elements of the DCVPNs over
the underlying physical network. This will support the delivery
of packets to the destination VM, and provide the network functions
required for the migration of VMs within the network in a
sub-second timeframe.
This has been discussed a bit, but I still can't believe that it won't cause
contention down the line. The term "migration" will mean different things to
different people and some will expect it to mean the picking up of one active
operational environment and its transportation to run in a different place. We
need to be clear whether we mean simply that the "re-registration" of a VM at a
different location and the associated "convergence" of the network is intended
to be sub-second, or whether it is the whole transportation of the VM.
I don't have an immediate suggestion for wording around this other than to say
that the bald word "migration" is not enough.
I think that discussion on the list has clarified this to mean that network
will not be a gate to subsecond migration of the VM, but the process
of migrating the VM is outside the scope of the charter.
Perhaps we can say:
"This will support the delivery
of packets to the destination VM, and provide the network functions
required to support the migration of VMs within the network in a
sub-second timeframe."
Stewart