Category: SDN

After the initial onslaught of SDN washing, four distinct approaches to SDN have started to emerge, from centralized control plane architectures to smart reuse of existing protocols.

As always, each approach has its benefits and drawbacks, and there’s no universally best solution. You just got four more (somewhat immature) tools in your toolbox. And now for the details.

Some OpenFlow-focused startups are desperately trying to tell you how redundant their architecture is. Unfortunately all the whitepapers (and the prancing unicorns) cannot change a simple fact: an SDN controller (OpenFlow-based or otherwise) is in some aspects a single failure domain.

The latest release of Cisco Nexus 1000V for vSphere can handle twice as many vSphere hosts as the previous one (250 instead of 128). Cisco probably did a lot of code polishing to improve Nexus 1000V scalability, but I’m positive most of the improvement comes from interesting architectural changes.

The pilot episode of Software Gone Wild podcast featuring Snabb Switch created plenty of additional queries (and thousands of downloads) – it was obviously time for another deep dive episode discussing the intricate innards of this interesting virtual switch.

During the deep dive Luke Gorrie, the mastermind behind the Snabb Switch, answered a long list of questions, including:

If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you know that I spent a lot of time during the last three years debunking SDN myths, explaining the limitations of OpenFlow and pointing out other technologies one could use to program the network.

During the summer of 2014 I organized my SDN- and OpenFlow-related blog posts into a digital book. I want to make this information as useful and as widely distributed as possible – for a limited time you can download the PDF free of charge.

Learn more about the book

A while ago I wrote about the idea of treating network infrastructure (and all other infrastructure) as code, and using the same processes application developers are using to write, test and deploy code to design and implement networks.

That approach clearly works well if you can virtualize (and clone ad infinitum) everything. We can virtualize appliances or even routers, but installed equipment and high-speed physical infrastructure remain somewhat resistant to that idea. We need a different paradigm, and the best analogy I could come up with is a database.

I first met Elisa Jasinska when she had one of the coolest job titles I ever saw: Senior Packet Herder. Her current job title is almost as cool: Senior Network Toolsmith @ Netflix – obviously an ideal guest for the Software Gone Wild podcast.

In our short chat she described some of the tools she’s working on, including an adaptation of pmacct to environments with numerous BGP exit points (more details in her NANOG presentation).

A few days ago I had an interesting interview with Christoph Jaggi discussing the challenges, changes in mindsets and processes, and other “minor details” one must undertake to gain something from the SDDC concepts. The German version of the interview is published on Inside-IT.ch; you’ll find the English version below.

A while ago I explained why OpenFlow might be a wrong tool for some jobs, and why centralized control plane might not make sense, and quickly got misquoted as saying “controllers don’t scale”. Nothing could be further from the truth, properly architected controller-based architectures can reach enormous scale – Amazon VPC is the best possible example.

What can you do if you have a small team of networking engineers responsible for four ever-growing data centers (with several hundred network devices in each of them)? There’s only one answer: you try to survive by automating as much as you can.

In the fourth episode of Software Gone Wild podcast David Barosso from Spotify explains how they use network automation to cope with the ever-growing installed base without increasing the size of the networking team.

Someone left the following comment on one of my blog posts:

There is a paradigm shift that I don’t think most application developers understand. In a traditional enterprise model, the network is built around the application requirements, now we are saying the application has to build around the network.

I would say there’s no paradigm shift – developers of well-performing applications were always aware of laws of physics.

The use of tools has accelerated human evolution and made us what we are today. Networking is no different, and yet there aren’t that many tool builders among the networking engineers… or maybe all you need is a nudge and some hints on how to get started.

For the second episode of Software Gone Wild I got a truly interesting guest: David Gee, a network engineer already working on numerous network programmability and orchestration deployment.

During our half-hour chat we couldn’t avoid the question of whether every networking engineer will become a programmer and David provided an interesting answer: you don’t have to program, but you’ll definitely have to start thinking more like a good programmer.

A reader sent me this question:

I am hearing a lot about API in reference to SDN. I do not have any software or programming background but would like to understand this API in practical way. Could you help me?

TL&DR: API is CLI for program-to-program communication

I was asked to do a presentation at the recent Slovenian NOG (SINOG) meeting. I did an SDN one at the previous meeting, making NFV the next obvious choice… but I decided to put an interesting spin on it and focused on virtual routers.