nanog mailing list archives
RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?
From: <adamv0025 () netconsultings com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:55:29 +0100
Router/switch slicing is supported but not really used much adam From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com () nanog org> On Behalf Of Djamel Sadok Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:47 PM To: Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa () ieee org> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable? Djamel On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa () ieee org <mailto:edepa () ieee org> > wrote: I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now. If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight <https://www.keysight.com/zz/en/events/america/webinars.html?D2C=2036435&isSocialSharing=Y&partnerref=emailShareFromGateway> (warning: requires registration), then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells. Cheers, Etienne On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom com <mailto:mark.tinka () seacom com> > wrote: On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper <https://www.infinera.com/wp-content/uploads/HR-Operator-Strategies-for-5G-Transport-July-2020_WP.pdf> , useful? " For transport network slicing, operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs), regardless of the VPN flavor. Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of respondents), but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively. The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing technologies— those that physically partition resources among slices. Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences." Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the rest? The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's. Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated. If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-). Mark. -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
Current thread:
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?, (continued)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mark Tinka (Aug 06)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Etienne-Victor Depasquale (Aug 07)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mark Tinka (Aug 07)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? sronan (Aug 07)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mark Tinka (Aug 07)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mark Tinka (Aug 07)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Djamel Sadok (Aug 04)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mark Tinka (Aug 04)
- RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? adamv0025 (Aug 04)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mark Tinka (Aug 06)
- RE: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? adamv0025 (Aug 04)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Christopher Morrow (Aug 04)
- Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? Mike Hammett (Aug 02)