Category: data center

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.

I must have confused a few readers with my blog posts describing Arista’s VARP and Enterasys’ Fabric Routing – I got plenty of questions along the lines of “how does it really work behind the scenes?” Let’s shed some light on those dirty details.

Not surprisingly, the unorthodox ideas of Tore Anderson generated plenty of questions, so he spent ~20 minutes answering them.

Plexxi has an interesting problem. They have a shiny new solution that requires unorthodox approaches to network forwarding and allows them to implement potentially cool concepts like affinities (traffic engineering in disguise). They also need to sell these new concepts to the customers, and the first question I would ask after recovering from a hefty dose of cool-aid is "and how do I configure these affinities?"

Remember Tore Anderson’s IPv6-only data center design he described in last June’s webinar? Wondered how he got it done? The secret sauce he used is SIIT – the stateless IPv6-to-IPv4 translation technology. His trick: turning it around.

I was listening to the fantastic OTV Deep Dive PQ Packet Pushers podcast while biking around the wonderful Slovenian forests. They started the podcast by discussing OTV use cases, Ethan throwing in long-distance vMotion (the usual long-distance L2 extension selling point), but refreshingly some of the engineers said “well, that’s not really the use case we see in real life.”

So what were the use cases they were mentioning?

Regardless of the advantages of photonic switching (David Husak claims it’s 20.000 times more effective than electronic switching), the programmable optical components remain ludicrously expensive, prompting Plexxi to launch a cost-optimized fixed-topology version of their data center products.

During the Networking Tech Field Day 6 Spirent showed us Avalanche NEXT – another great testing tool that generates up to 10Gbps of perfectly valid application-level traffic that you can push through your network devices to test their performance, stability or impact of feature mix on maximum throughput.

Not surprisingly, as soon as they told us that you could use Avalanche NEXT to replay captured traffic we started getting creative ideas.

Moving a running VM into a foreign subnet is Mission Impossible due to stale ARP entries (anyone telling you otherwise is handwaving over a detail or two - maybe their VM doesn't communicate with other VMs in the same subnet), but it's entirely feasible to migrate a cold VM into a foreign subnet if you can fix IP routing. Here's how you can do the trick with Enterasys switches.

One of the usual complaints I hear whenever I mention overlay virtual networks is “with overlay networks we lose all application visibility and QoS functionality” ... that worked so phenomenally in the physical networks, right?

Networking vendors are quick to point out how the opaqueness (read: we don’t have the HW to look into it) of overlay networks presents visibility problems and how their favorite shiny gizmo (whatever it is) gives you better results (they usually forget to mention the lock-in that it creates).

Now let’s step back and ask a fundamental question: how much bandwidth do we need?

We’ve been hearing how the networking is the last bastion of rigidity in the wonderful unicorn-flavored virtual world for the last few years. Let’s see why it’s so much harder to virtualize the networks as opposed to compute or storage capacities (side note: it didn’t help that virtualization vendors had no clue about networking, but things are changing).