Subject: [dc] A purpose of the draft /// Re: draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

From: Richard Bin liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:04:24 +0800

Greetings David,

Thank you for your comments and question, it is a good question.
>From your viewpoint, "the interoperability between the different
vender (or SPs)" is the necessary condition of the "to work for the
IETF", but I think it is only a sufficient condition of the "to work
for the IETF", not a necessary condition, for example, do VM migration
between private desktop system with IPV6 addresses systems is not one
of the goals of the IETF? Of course yes. Whether or not to agree with
my viewpoint, seamless VM migration between a variety of computing
systems (servers, tablet PCs, mobile phone system) is an irreversible
trend in the future. Do IETF going to miss it?

So, I am sorry, in my personal viewpoint, your query is debatable.

See here, some people may be in doubt: Is the existing program can not
solve your problem?

Yes, the reasons for defect analysis of existing system can refer to
my following opinion(you can seach "traditional tunneling gateway" to
find it in this mail).

Many thanks for guidance

Regards,

Richard Bin Liu

[email-masked]
[email-masked]

-------------------------------------------------------
> About VM migration in the draft, we did not demand forcibly between the different vender(or SPs), so your concerns may not  exist.

In other words, there’s no work for the IETF to do because
interoperability is not a goal.  What have I missed?

Thanks,
--David

From: dc-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of liu.bin21 at zte.com.cn
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:57 PM
To: narten at us.ibm.com; vumip1 at gmail.com
Cc: dc at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

Thomas, thank you for your comments!

About VM migration in the draft, we did not demand forcibly between
the different vender(or SPs), so your concerns may not
exist. As you say, "let's be realistic", our intention is to improve
the flexibility of VM migration, as well as the breadth
of applications under the premise of market heavyweights are not
opposed to it.In order to achieve these goals, analyse possible
problems, discuss and resolve these problems, such as: VM migration is
due to a non-public sector energy-efficient needs, rather than to
public access without interruption, or business needs of the user's
desktop migration, this demand may exist within a same service
provider, or you say a same vender with mixed network, for example:

With the promotion of IPv6 technology, the existing IPv4 networks will
be more and more IPv6 hosts, these applications driven
a series of tunnel technologies to provide solutions, such as: 6to4
tunnel technology, ISATAP tunnel technology, and so on.
Virtual machine migration technology will also be the basis of these
network environments,in the transition network using tunneling
transition technique, the connections between the subnets and the
backbone network are achieved through the tunneling gateway. In the
IPv4/IPv6 transition period, a variety of tunnels coexist. The
establishment of the tunnel varies with different gateways. The
traditional tunneling gateway only establishes tunnels for
communication with the same type of gateway, the different types of
traditional tunneling gateway cannot communicate with each other,
which cannot meet the requirements of VPN communications in the
transition period. A multi-tunnel VPN gateway is used to solve the
problem of establishing the tunnel between the heterogeneous gateways.

Many thanks for guidance

Regards,

Bin Liu

liu.bin21 at zte.com.cn
Richard.BoHan.liu at gmail.com

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:14:24 -0500

Hi Richard,

> See here, some people may be in doubt: Is the existing program can not

The answer to that question is missing from the draft, and it should start
with a statement of what the actual problem is.  The actual problem is *not*
virtual machine migration in general (as stated in the draft's Introduction),
as that already works fine over IP based networks (both IPv4 and IPv6).

What work are you advocating that the IETF undertake, and how would that
work improve the current situation for vitual machine migration?

The draft does not contain any answer to that question either.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Richard Bin liu
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:04 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: narten; dc; Bhumip Khasnabish
> Subject: [dc] A purpose of the draft /// Re: draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt
> 
> Greetings David,
> 
> In other words, there's no work for the IETF to do because
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc

---

From: Bhumip Khasnabish <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:38:38 -0500

>The actual problem is *not* virtual machine migration in general
>(as stated in the draft's Introduction), as that *already works fine*>over IP based networks (both IPv4 and IPv6).
Is that commonly true David? ... try moving a VM from one control domain to
another even within one building .. the situation becomes worse when VM
needs to be moved across data-centers ove wide area (country, regions,
etc.) across geographical boundary

>What work are you advocating that the IETF undertake,
>and how would that work improve the current situation
> for vitual machine migration?
The VMMI-req. draft focuses on problem statement and requirements for VM
migration  ..once we agree on these we can discuss how *standardized
control and techniques/process* would help seamless migration of VM across
different admin, and control domains .. any others thoughts and suggestions
..

Thanks.

Best.

Bhumip

 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the different vender(or SPs), so
> > your concerns may not  exist.
> >
> >
> >