Talk:Network function virtualization

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Confusion of Terms

NFV and VNF are not the same. However, the two terms are related and, because of their similarity, often confused. Unfortunately, this topic contains the same mistake. It switches from talking about NFV to "A virtualized network function, or VNF, may consist". I'd like to correct this issue and thought I would start by bringing it up for discussion here before making an edit. What are your thoughts and feelings on this issue?

Here is a standards-based description of NFV: http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv
Here is a high level mention of NFV vs VNF and other TLAs: http://getcloudify.org/2015/03/22/mobile-world-congress-nfv-sdn-network-orchestration-automation.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfedh (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early COI

Dear Wikipedia,

with regards to my entry on "Network Functions Virtualization", please note that since I am one of the co-authors of our white paper on the subject and which the ETSI organization used in order to produce its press release (www.etsi.org/news-events/news/644-2013-01-isg-nfv-created), there is no copyright issue. However, I have modified the proposed content for editing purposes. Hope you find this to your satisfaction and we will keep improving the contents and quality of the proposed article on "Network Functions Virtualization". Thank you for your patronage, it is extremely helpful to the community.

Christos Kolias

[an email with the same exact information was sent to the address permissions-en@wikimedia.org from my address ckolias@gmail.com

Alas, a cut-n-paste of a promotional press release is never appropriate for Wikipedia, so do not think copyright is the issue, but rather conflict of interest. Thank you for the disclosure. The problem is I am still having trouble guessing what the article is about. In English, only proper nouns are in capital letters, so would presume this refers to one specific thing rather than the general concept, which would be covered in the network virtualization article. So perhaps this is about the trade group of phone companies with this name? Will try to save by rewriting it as such, instead of just being a vague promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it appears a User talk:Ckolias (without any edit summary) changed the lead to say "about building software-based network functions and services that today exist in dedicated, bespoke hardware." and removed the wikilinks. I have no idea what "bespoke hardware" is, although I have been a specialist in computer networking for 30 years. I reverted it back until we can reach consensus about what this is supposed to be about. My guess was since it had capital letters, it referred to the specific working group described. If it is going to be a general concept, then it seems like it should be in lower case, and probably merged into something like network virtualization. Maybe something is being lost in translation? W Nowicki (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke hardware isn't a technical networking term, it's just a normal language description - bespoke means custom made. I think the distinction the original author was making was between bespoke hardware (i.e. custom made for that appliance, and not usable for anything else) and generic hardware (i.e. generally on sale from a server manufacturer and usable for a number of different purposes).

Zirion (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the list of "Early Adopters" suspect as catering to marketing declarations by vendors. As one of the people involved in SDN I was present at the 2012 NFV unveiling. Most of the vendors mentioned as early adopters were not there. Some of the ones listed are (in my opinion) not supporting SDN and NFV in any concrete way yet, apart from marketing declarations to the effect of "we like it", and in some cases going as far as to claim they have been doing SDN all along, and it's about time the industry caught on to where they were leading the whole time. I'd like to see the list changed to point to actual offerings related to NFV , if any, by these "early supporters", as opposed to mere marketing presentations, white papers, blog entries etc.

Orr101 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest making it "notable early adopters", strip all the external links, link to Wikipedia articles where available. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing to "Some notable early adopters". Linking to wikipedia articles for each company would leave the links to these companies irrelevant, as in most cases NFV would only be a small part of their portfolios. Also, although many of them do have NFV related products right now, NFV is not a simple solution or product, and typically it would be difficult to link to a particular product. Yet the risk of subjecting Wikipedia to pure Marketing is relevant, and would like to know how to clarify this objection on the article. Suggestions?

igcarrillo (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procera Networks

I'd like to have Procera Networks (NASDAQ:PKT) added to the list of early adopters. But since I work at Procera Networks I do not want to modify the page to add this myself. I present the following material to prove the early adoption of NFV and SDN by Procera Networks.

I also suggest to have the list of Early adopters sorted by A-Z instead of having "Sandvine" on the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.andersson.procera (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heading section

I find the heading section, while trying to detach from the original whitepaper giving birth to NFV, has grown too general and does not give a clear idea of what NFV is, so that it can be mistaken for a general IT concept. Also it does not relate to other content inside wikipedia. I am proposing an alternative wording for the heading section.

igcarrillo (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualised Infrastructure Manager

There is a new artcile Virtualised Infrastructure Manager, which does not have enough standing to be an independent one and I suggest to merge it's content here Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed all the details I used from: NFV Framework, how can it be that when I split up the same content from this article, that the independent parts of that are claimed as copyright infringement? Thanks for your feedback. --Never stop exploring (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

maintain corporate neutral tone?

Page currently lists "Google Talk" by name, but this is only one of many such services. I suggest either more examples (e.g., Microsoft Skype, Netflix) be added, or the mention of Google Talk and all specific products/services be removed. 76.22.56.75 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)dmaltz[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Network function virtualization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150607213250/http://carriernetworkvirtualization.com/carrier-network-virtualization-awards/ to http://carriernetworkvirtualization.com/carrier-network-virtualization-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]