Hi Diego and Authors.. Can you clarify if any data path acceleration techniques were used to measure throughput between guest and host OS. If not what is the usefulness of that metric - If the idea is to show raw comparisons then fine - if the idea is to show how bad the VMs are when compared to Unikernel and containers then you have achieved it it well..
The main issues with Unikernels or containers for NFV are not discussed in depth - Issues such as single threading support, IP address assignment and container networking need further exploration and study. Need at least statements in the document that those are for further study. So perhaps I am missing the point of adoption of this draft - may be the objectives can be clarified. Regards, Azhar > On Jan 3, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Diego R. Lopez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > This first message of the new year is to launch a two-week adoption call for > draft-natarajan-nfvrg-containers-for-nfv. Ramki and I believe the document is > mature enough to consider its adoption, once it has evolved from an analysis > of container technology into a more comprehensive discussion of lightweight > technologies in NFV. > > Please indicate in your comments “support” or “no support” and discuss how > this draft will contribute to the goals of NFVRG. > > The current draft is available at: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-natarajan-nfvrg-containers-for-nfv/ > > Be goode, > > > -- > "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" > > Dr Diego R. Lopez > Telefonica I+D > http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ > > e-mail: [email protected] > Tel: +34 913 129 041 > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ---------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Nfvrg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg _______________________________________________ Nfvrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg
