Talk:Virtual network

Virtual Network vs. VPN, VLAN

I find no support in the listed references that Virtual network refers to VPN or VLAN tehcnology. The VMWare reference does make a case for the term being used in the context of virtualization but I'm not convinced this is widely used and not just a VMWare product-specific term. --Kvng (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call VPN and VLAN virtual network although they do provide some network virtualization (that's a definite NO to merging with VLAN). A VPN is a (usually) tunneled private link across a public network. A VLAN is a virtual segmentation of a physical network, using port-based rules and tagging (much like using additional switches and cabling).

A virtual network is virtual in total/majority: virtual switch, virtual NICs, virtual hosts. Most of the time, a virtual network has one or a few (possibly trunked) physical ports to link into a physical network, but you can also have an internal virtual network just between VMs, with no physical presence at all. You can use VLANs in a virtual network as well and use the physical links with tagging to connect into VLANs on physical switches. In a nutshell, a virtual switch makes a network virtual.

Also, virtualization happens on different OSI layers: VPN uses layer 3 (or 4), VLAN layer 2 and VN layer 1.

Any support for changing the article accordingly and only refer to VPN and VLAN as related technologies? Zac67 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Microsoft uses the same term: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc720355%28v=ws.10%29.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac67 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VLAN and VLID are not one-to-one

"A VLAN can be created by partitioning a physical LAN into multiple logical LANs using a VLAN ID" A single VLAN ID doesn't achieve partitioning; you need at least one VLAN ID per VLAN. A VLAN may be tagged with different VLAN IDs on different (trunk) links, although not all routers support such mappings. Martin Kealey (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish

This article is utter gibberish. I do not mean that it is too technical; it is not technical at all, which is part of the problem. Rather, the article consists almost entirely of circular terms. A virtual network has virtual links implemented using network virtualization. A reader who knows what any of these terms mean would already know what a virtual network is, and therefore learns nothing from this article. Conversely, a reader who does not already know what a virtual network is would not know about network virtualization, and therefore learns nothing from this article. In fact, I don't see how, consistent with Wikipedia's policy on article titles, virtual network and network virtualization could legitimately be separate articles.

Also, Wikipedia's abbreviation guidelines require use of the full word in the first instance before using an abbreviation by itself, unlike the unhelpful sea of VXX abbreviations here. —Finell 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved: I redirected this stub to Network virtualization, which thoroughly treats the topic.—Finell 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That May 2014 was soon reversed without discussion; I'm trying again, following an unopposed November 2014 proposal. Klbrain (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]