Linux Container performs the same task as a hypervisor, i.e. enabling multiple isolated hosts (or VMs) running on a single physical machine. Why need a separate discussion for Linux Container?
Linda -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:08 PM To: Tom Herbert Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); [email protected]; [email protected]; Black, David; Linda Dunbar Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt Hi Tom. > Migration may be a better term than mobility, but the other part of > the phrasing, "node", was to encompass non-VM uses cases of network > virtualization migration in DC-- like job migration, container > migration. Is nvo3 explicitly about "VM" migration so that these other > cases are out of scope? Other cases have always been in scope (e.g., Linux containers, AIX LPARs, Solaris Zones, etc.). We just use the terms VMs and hypervisors all the time because that is the common case, at least at the moment. Looking at the framework and problem statement docs, this isn't called out as clearly as it should be. The next version of the architecture document will make this clearer. I.e., we had a discussion a while back on the list related to Linux containers. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
