<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Not sure what you mean NFV is NFV, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>From NFV perspective cRDP is no different than vMX -it’s just a virtualized router function nothing special…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Also with regards to NFV markets, it’s just CPE or telco-cloud (routing on host, FWs, LBs and other domain specific network devices like SBCs), and then RRs, no one sane would be replacing high throughput aggregation points like PEs or core nodes with NFV ,unless one wants to get into some serious horizontal scaling ;).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>adam <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Tinka<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:51 PM<br><b>To:</b> nanog@nanog.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On 1/Aug/20 18:23, Robert Raszuk wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Virtualization is not becoming obsolete ... quite reverse in fact in all types of deployments I can see around. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The point is that VM provides hardware virtualization while kubernetes with containers virtualize OS apps and services are running on in isolation. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Clearly to virtualize operating systems as long as your level of virtualization mainly in terms of security and resource consumption isolation & reservation is satisfactory is a much better and lighter option. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>I see cloud-native as NFV++. It requires some adjustment to how classic NFV has been deployed, and that comes down to whether operators (especially those who err on the side of network operations rather than services) see value in upgrading their stack to cloud-native.<br><br>If you're a Netflix or an Uber, sure, a cloud-native architecture is probably the only way you can scale. But if you are simple network operators who focus more on pushing packets than over-the-top services, particularly if you already have some NFV, making the move to cloud-native/NFV++ is a whole consideration.<br><br>Mark.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>