Category: SDN

On November 7th SDx Central published an article saying “OpenFlow is virtually dead.” There’s a first time for everything, and it’s a real fun reading a marketing blurb on a site sponsored by SDN vendors claiming the shiny SDN parade unicorn is dead.

On a more serious note, Tom Hollingsworth wrote a blog post in which he effectively said “OpenFlow is just a tool. Can we please find the right problem for it?”

One of my readers left this comment (slightly rephrased) on my Network Automation RFP Requirements blog post:

Given that we look up to our *nix pioneers as standard bearers for system automation, why do we demand an API from network devices? The API requirement would make sense if the vendor OS is a closed system. If an open system vendor creates APIs for applications running on their system (say for BGP configs) - kudos to them, but I no longer think that should be mandated.

He’s right - API is not a mandatory prerequisite for reliable network automation.

Just wanted to point you to two excellent blog posts recently published by Russ White.

Reaction: DevOps and Dumpster Fires

If teaching coders isn’t going to solve the problem, then what do we do? We need to go to where the money is. Applications aren’t bought by coders, just like networks aren’t.

One of my readers had problems getting the NFV big picture (and how it relates to SDN):

I find the topic area of SDN and NFV a bit overwhelming in terms of information, particularly the NFV bit.

NFV is a really simple concept (network services packaged in VM format), what makes it complex is all the infrastructure you need around it.

One of my long-time regular readers sent me this question:

I was wondering if you have had any interest in putting together an SD-WAN overview/update similar to what you do with data center fabrics where you cover the different product offerings, differentiators, solution scorecard…

That would be a good idea. Unfortunately the SD-WAN vendors aren’t exactly helping.

One of the common taglines parroted by SDN aficionados goes along the lines of “The cost to acquire and manage server and storage architectures has declined over time while networking stays stubbornly expensive.” (I took it straight from an anonymous blog comment).

Let’s see how well it matches reality.

One of the oft-repeated messages of the Software-Defined Pundits is “Standard bodies are broken, (open) source code is king”… and I’d guess that anyone who was too idealistic before being exposed to how the sausage is being made within IETF has no problems agreeing with them. However…

I stumbled upon a great ACM article comparing challenges of distributed systems with well-known milestones of modern physics.

The modern networks are probably the ultimate distributed systems. Now take the ideas from that article and apply them to the Centralized Control Plane concept (the last time I checked the marketers were still promoting that academic marvel).

In one of my ExpertExpress engagements the customer expressed the desire to manage their firewall with OpenFlow (using OpenDaylight) and I said, “That doesn’t make much sense”. Here’s why:

Obviously if you can't imagine your life without OpenDaylight, or if your yearly objectives include "deploying OpenDaylight-based SDN solution", you can use it as a REST-to-NETCONF translator assuming your firewall supports NETCONF.

This blog post was written in 2014 (and sat half-forgotten in a Word file somewhere in my Dropbox), but as it seems not much has changed in the meantime, it’s time to publish it anyway.

I was listening to the fantastic (now gone) SDN Trinity podcast while biking around Slovenian hills and almost fell off the bike while furiously nodding to a statement along the lines of “I hate how every SDN vendor loves to bash networking engineers.”

Now that we know which definitions of SDN make no sense (and which one might) let’s see what a typical architecture of an SDN solution might look like.

I described some of them in the SDN 101 webinar, for more details watch the SDN Architectures and Deployment Guidelines webinar.

One of my readers was listening to the Snabb Switch podcast and started wondering “whether it’s possible to leverage and adopt these bleeding-edge technologies without a substantial staff of savvy programmers?”

Short answer: No. Someone has to do the heavy lifting, regardless of whether you have programmers on-site, outsource the work to contractors, or pay vendors to do it.

A few days after I published a blog post arguing that most service providers cannot possibly copy Google’s ideas Giacomo Bernardi wrote a comment saying “well, we managed to build our own gear.”

Initially I thought they built their own Linux distribution on top of x86 server, but what Giacomo Bernardi described in Episode 59 of Software Gone Wild goes way beyond that:

A while ago Big Switch Networks engineers realized there’s a cool use case for their tap aggregation application (Big Tap Monitoring Fabric) – an intelligent patch panel traffic steering solution used as security tool chaining infrastructure in DMZ… and thus the Big Chain was born.

Curious how their solution works? Listen to Episode 58 of Software Gone Wild with Andy Shaw and Sandip Shah.

A blog post on Packet Pushers contained a quote by E. W. Dijkstra (of the SPF fame) and while trying to figure out whether that quote was real I stumbled upon his keynote address from a 1984 ACM conference (original). Not surprisingly, nothing has changed in the last 30+ years…