Category: data center

Every time I plug a new device into my Windows laptop and it automatically discovers the device type, installs the driver, configures the devices, and tells me it’s ready for use, I wonder why we can’t have get the same level of automation in networking.

Consider, for example, a well-known vSphere link failover issue: if you forget to enable portfast on server-facing switch ports, some VMs lose connectivity for up to 30 seconds every time a switch reloads.

You probably know the three steps to a disaster recovery plan: Disaster. Recovery. Plan. It’s amazing how true that joke is, and how unprepared we tend to be for infrequent outages.

Chris Wahl claimed in one of his recent blog posts that vSphere doesn't need LAG band-aids. He's absolutely right – vSphere’s loop prevention logic alleviates the need for STP-blocked links, allowing you to use full server uplink bandwidth without the complexity of link aggregation. Now let’s consider the networking perspective.

During my ExpertExpress engagements with engineers building multi-tenant cloud infrastructure I often get questions along the lines of “How do I integrate my public IaaS cloud with my MPLS/VPN WAN?” Here are a few ideas.

Gateways between overlay virtual world and (VLAN-based) physical reality are a crucial component in every design using overlay virtual networks. Ideally one could use virtual appliances, but sometimes the users keep asking for layer-2 gateways.

The VMware NSX Layer-2 Gateways video from the VMware NSX Architecture webinar describes the use cases for layer-2 gateways and the VMware NSX implementations.

In the second section of VMware NSX Architecture webinar I explained the need for overlay virtual networks and what their benefits are as compared to traditional VLANs.

As one of their early marketing moves, VMware started promoting VMware NSX with a catchy “fact” – you can deploy a new VM or virtual disk in minutes, but it usually takes days or more before you can get a new VLAN or a firewall or load balancer rule from the networking team.

Ignoring the complexity of network virtualization, they had a point, and the network services rigidity really bothered me … until I finally realized that we’re dealing with a broken process.

The recent Juniper product launch included numerous components, among them: a new series of data center switches (including a badly-needed spine switch), MetaFabric reference architecture (too meta for me at the moment – waiting to see the technical documentation beyond the whitepaper level), and (finally) a leaf-and-spine virtual chassis – Virtual Chassis Fabric.

Every good data center presentation starts with redefining The Problem and my VMware NSX Architecture webinar was no exception – the first section describes Infrastructure-as-a-Service Networking Requirements.

I sprinted through this section during the live session, the video with longer (and more detailed) explanation comes from the Overlay Virtual Networking webinar.

During the final part of the IPv6-only data centers webinar Tore Anderson described his deployment guidelines and answered a few more questions.

Another day, another stateful debate, this time centered on the number of flows per hypervisor. Previously I guestimated 2.500 connections-per-second-per-(user-facing)gigabit and 37.500 concurrent sessions per user-facing gigabit, but wanted to align my numbers with reality before reaching any conclusions.

My web sites are way too small, so I asked a few of my friends to help me get more realistic figures.

A while ago I wrote about ATAoE and why I think a layer-2-only TFTP-like protocol shouldn’t be used these days. As always, the answer to that black-and-white opinion (and I’m full of them) is “it depends” – ATAoE works great if you do it right.

The edited videos from VMware NSX Architecture webinar are published on my demo content web site and on YouTube. Enjoy!

One of the holy grails of data center SDN evangelists is controller-driven traffic engineering (throwing more leaf-and-spine bandwidth at the problem might be cheaper, but definitely not sexier). Obviously they don’t call it traffic engineering as they don’t want to scare their audience with MPLS TE nightmares, but the idea is the same.

Interestingly, you don’t need new technologies to get as close to that holy grail as you wish; Petr Lapukhov got there with a 20 year old technology – BGP.

My keynote speech @ PLNOG11 conference was focused on (surprise, surprise) overlay virtual networks and described the usual motley crew: The Annoying Problem, The Hated VLAN, The Overlay Unicorn, The Control-Plane Wisdom and The Ever-Skeptic Use Case. You can view the presentation on my web site; PLNOG organizers promised video recording in mid-October.

Just in case you’re wondering why I keep coming back to PLNOG: they’re not only as good as ever; they’re getting even more creative.