Re: WG ADOPTION: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv
Marius Georgescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I think this work is important for the future of this WG and I support its adoption.
I also have two questions for the authors:
1. For the Comparison with Physical Network Functions, I was wondering if a performance degradation index between a physical and a virtual network function would make sense. For example, run a RFC2544.throughput test with a physical switch as DUT and get X result, run the same test with a virtual switch as DUT and get Y result. Express the performance degradation in percentage as:
X - Y
PD= ----------- * 100
X
2. Considering the Matrix Coverage Summary, I was wondering why no De-activation benchmark was proposed.
Best regards,
Marius
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 00:46, Sarah B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello BWWG,
> According to the minutes from IETF94 (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-bmwg <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-bmwg>), those present in the room expressed interest in the draft. There've been several reviewers, and strong discussion during each IETF meeting since the draft was introduced. As Al is a named author, I'd like to, with my chair hat on, ask the BMWG list to confirm their support for this draft and call for adoption.
>
> Please reply with your opinion whether the BMWG should adopt this draft, whether you have read the draft, and any comments on the draft or this call for adoption. Let's attempt to complete this call for adoption and meet a deadline of April 20th, 2016.
>
> Kind regards,
> Sarah
> BMWG Co-Chair
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg