Hi Roberto, I echo Diego's thoughts. Would certainly be interested in knowing more.
Thanks, Ramki On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Diego R. Lopez < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Roberto, > > I would be very much interested in knowing more about this approach. At > the last OpenStack Summit in Barcelona I had the opportunity to discuss the > approach of a lightweight VIM (or even a general lightweight cloud > orchestration) for use cases like the one that you mention. We believe the > current OpenVIM inside OpenMANO is a clear example of it. > > Be goode, > > On 7 Jan 2017, at 11:52 , Roberto Riggio <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was thinking about frameworks like dockyard. There are many other tools > (more or less complex) > to manage containers without going to full blown VIMs like openstack. > However what is missing is > a Lightweight MANO to replace platforms like OPNFV etc. il the low-end > side of the spectrum. We > are actually working on this but it is still very far from a public > release. > > R. > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:23 PM, ram krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Roberto, >> >> >> >> Valid point. Do you have any specific examples in mind? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ramki >> >> >> >> *From:* Roberto Riggio [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Friday, January 6, 2017 12:59 PM >> *To:* ram krishnan <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Azhar Sayeed <[email protected]>; Diego R. Lopez < >> [email protected]>; [email protected] >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Nfvrg] Call for adoption of >> draft-natarajan-nfvrg-containers-for-nfv >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I was wondering if the lightweight NFV performance comparison should also >> be extended >> >> to the rest of the stack. For example openstack + opnfv could be very >> heavyweight while >> >> other management platforms for containers (if they exists) could be >> executed on low >> >> power platforms (which could make sense in some deployments). >> >> >> >> R. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:47 PM, ram krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Azhar, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the comments and the interest. The rationale behind adoption >> is we see strong community interest in the topic and have reasonable >> content in the document. We still have more steps like last call before the >> RFC publication and are expecting good community contribution to the >> document prior to that. >> >> >> >> For the performance comparisons, we didn't use HW acceleration techniques >> since they are application and deployment specific; for example, a small >> CPE in an enterprise branch may never use any hardware acceleration because >> of the low throughput requirements. Any specific suggestions including >> references in this area are most welcome. >> >> >> >> Container networking is definitely an interesting topic. We will >> certainly capture the challenges in a mixed Container/OpenStack >> environment, how efforts like Kuryr are attempting to address these and how >> SR-IOV plays out in this scenario. Any other suggestions are welcome. >> >> >> >> Can you please elaborate more on the single threading support? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ramki >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nfvrg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Azhar Sayeed >> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 8:11 AM >> To: Diego R. Lopez <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] Call for adoption of draft-natarajan-nfvrg-containe >> rs-for-nfv >> >> >> >> 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-conta >> iners-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 <+34%20913%2012%2090%2041> >> >> > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 <+34%20682%2005%2010%2091> >> >> > ---------------------------------- >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Nfvrg mailing list >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Nfvrg mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nfvrg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Roberto Riggio, Ph.D. >> >> CREATE-NET >> >> Chief Scientist >> >> Future Networks (FuN) >> >> Via alla Cascata 56/D - 38123 Povo Trento (Italy) >> >> e-mail: [email protected] <- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS >> >> office: (+39) 0461 31 24 81 >> >> Fax: (+39) 0461 42 11 57 >> >> mobile: (+39) 338 72 93 203 >> >> skype: hamvil >> >> homepage: http://www.robertoriggio.net/ >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > Roberto Riggio, Ph.D. > CREATE-NET > Chief Scientist > Future Networks (FuN) > Via alla Cascata 56/D - 38123 Povo Trento (Italy) > e-mail: [email protected] <- NEW EMAIL ADDRESS > office: (+39) 0461 31 24 81 > Fax: (+39) 0461 42 11 57 > mobile: (+39) 338 72 93 203 > skype: hamvil > homepage: http://www.robertoriggio.net/ > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > "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 <+34%20913%2012%2090%2041> > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 <+34%20682%2005%2010%2091> > ---------------------------------- > > -- Thanks, Ramki
_______________________________________________ Nfvrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg
