Hi, > > 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." This is getting close, and I appreciate the intent. And I understand this is getting wrapped around the axle of requirements that have not yet been written. What we want to do is include a description of the migration rate and speed of VMs. This is useful material like the scaling parameters. What we need to do is say what the WG works on. But I am not clear what a "network function" is in this context, or how such a function "supports the migration" of VMs without actually being involved in the migration. On reflection, we can also do something to improve the sentence because the two halves are not really related. How about solving this with two changes... OLD An NVO3 solution (known here as a Data Center Virtual Private Network (DCVPN)) is a VPN that is viable across a scaling range of a few thousand VMs to several million VMs running on greater than 100K physical servers. It thus has good scaling properties from relatively small networks to networks with several million DCVPN endpoints and hundreds of thousands of DCVPNs within a single administrative domain. NEW An NVO3 solution (known here as a Data Center Virtual Private Network (DCVPN)) is a VPN that is viable across a scaling range of a few thousand VMs to several million VMs running on greater than 100K physical servers. It thus has good scaling properties from relatively small networks to networks with several million DCVPN endpoints and hundreds of thousands of DCVPNs within a single administrative domain. A DCVPN also supports VM migration between physical servers in a sub-second timeframe. END ...and... OLD 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. NEW 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 within the scaling and migration limits described above. END Thanks, Adrian PS To Thomas who thinks we are needlessly wordsmithing... When I see the spectre of fist-fights about the outcome of this work, I prefer to spend one or two weeks extra at this stage nailing down all loose corners rather than several months in ICU sometime in the future.