On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. The architecture document now became an RFC, it is RFC 7365. Which next version will make this clearer? Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
