Replace location-based and social media with some hot networking buzzwords.

My tweet about the latest proof of my layer-2 = single failure domain claim has raised numerous questions about the use of bridging (aka switching) within Internet Exchange Points (IXP). Let’s see why most IXPs use L2 switching and why L2 switching is the simplest solution to the problem they’re solving.

David Le Goff sent me several great SDN-related questions. Here’s the first one:

What is your take on the performance issue with software-based equipment when dealing with general purpose CPU only? Do you see this challenge as a hard stop to SDN business?

Short answer (as always) is it depends. However, I think most people approach this issue the wrong way.

This post is probably a bit premature, but I’m positive your CIO will get a visit from a vendor offering clean-slate OpenFlow/SDN-based data center fabrics in not so distant future. At that moment, one of the first questions you should ask is “how well does your new wonderland integrate with my existing network?” or more specifically “which L2 and L3 protocols do you support?”

A friendly offer to write a guest blog post for my blog just landed in my Inbox. It's amazing what some people think networking engineers really need.

A lot of engineers are concerned with what seems to be frivolous creation of new encapsulation formats supporting virtual networks. While STT makes technical sense (it allows soft switches to use existing NIC TCP offload functionality), it’s harder to figure out the benefits of VXLAN and NVGRE. Scott Lowe wrote a great blog post recently where he asked a very valid question: “Couldn’t we use MPLS over GRE or IP?” We could, but we wouldn’t gain anything by doing that.

Every time I write about a simple use case that could benefit from OpenFlow, I invariably get a comment along the lines of “you can do that with NETCONF”. Repeated often enough, such comments might make an outside observer believe you don’t need OpenFlow for Software Defined Networking (SDN), which is simply not true. Here are at least three fundamental reasons why that’s the case.

After the initial explosion of OpenFlow/SDN hype, a number of people made claims that OpenFlow is not the tool one can use to make SDN work, and NETCONF is commonly mentioned as an alternative (not surprisingly, considering that both Cisco IOS and Junos support it). Unfortunately, considering today’s state of NETCONF, nothing can be further from the truth.

It’s clear that major hypervisor vendors consider MAC-over-IP to be the endgame for virtual networking; they’re still squabbling about the best technology and proper positioning of bits in various headers, but the big picture is crystal-clear. Once they get there (solving “a few” not-so-trivial problems on the way), and persuade everyone to use virtual appliances, the network will have to provide seamless IP transport, nothing more.

At that moment, large-scale bridging will finally become a history (until the big layer pendulum swings again) and one has to wonder whether there’s any data center future for TRILL, SPB, FabricPath and other vendor-specific derivatives.

Jerome has just published the second version of our BGP operations and security Internet draft. Most of the typos and obvious blunders have been fixed (or so we hope) and we’ve incorporated numerous comments received online or during the Paris IETF meeting. Feedback is (as always) highly welcome.

The latest draft is available here.