Category: virtualization

It took years before the rumored Cisco vSwitch materialized (in the form of Nexus 1000v), several more years before there was the first competitor (IBM Distributed Virtual Switch), and who knows how long before the third entrant (recently announced HP vSwitch) jumps out of PowerPoint slides and whitepapers into the real world.

Compare that to the Hyper-V environment, where we have at least two virtual switches (Nexus 1000V and NEC's PF1000) mere months after Hyper-V's general availability.

A while ago, while listening to an interesting CloudCast podcast (my second favorite podcast - the best one out there is still the Packet Pushers), I stumbled upon an interesting idea “Data has gravity”. The podcast guest used that idea to explain how data agglomerates in larger and larger chunks and how it makes sense to move the data processing (application) closer to the data.

Francesco made an interesting comment to my Virtual Appliance Performance blog post:

Virtual Appliance Performance is comparable to the equivalent Physical Appliance until the latter use its own ASICs (for a good reason), e.g. Palo Alto with its new generation Firewall...

Let’s do a bit of math combined with a few minutes of Googling ;)

I was asked to do a short virtual networking presentation during this year’s Microsoft NT Conference in Slovenia. Most of the audience were server and virtualization administrators, having anywhere from zero to pretty decent networking knowledge; getting the right balance of basics and interesting features was a struggle.

They told me the end result wasn’t that bad. It’s a bit Microsoft-biased, but applies equally well to VMware (be it vSphere/VXLAN or Open vSwitch/NVP combo).

Hatem Naguib claimed that “the NSX controller cluster is completely out-of-band, and never handles a data packet” when describing VMware NSX Network Virtualization architecture, preemptively avoiding the “flow-based forwarding doesn’t scale” arguments usually triggered by stupidities like this one.

Does that mean there’s no packet punting in the NSX/Open vSwitch world? Not so fast.

I was talking about virtual firewalls for almost an hour at the Troopers13 conference, and the first question I got after the presentation was “who is going to manage the virtual firewalls? The networking team, the security team or the virtualization team?”

There’s the obvious “silos don’t work” answer and “DevOps/NetOps” buzzword bingo, but the real solution requires everyone involved to shift their perspective.

The 45 minute virtual firewalls presentation I had at Troopers 13 is now available online. The virtual firewalls webinar is an in-depth 2,5 hour version that includes numerous product architectures.

You can get all my recent public presentations and a list of upcoming events on my web site.

Dmitry Kalintsev left a great comment on my security paradigm changing post:

I have not yet seen redundant VNIC-level firewall implementations, which stopped me from using [...] them. One could argue that vSwitches are also non-redundant, but a vSwitch usually has to do stuff much less complex than what a firewall would, meaning chances or things going south are lower.

As always, things are not purely black-and-white and depend a lot on the product architecture and implementation.

Almost exactly two years ago I wrote an article describing the benefits and drawbacks of virtual appliances, where I listed virtualization overhead as one of the major sore spots (still partially true). I also wrote: “Implementing routers, switches or firewalls in a virtual appliance would just burn the CPU cycles that could be better used elsewhere.” It’s time to revisit this claim.

VXLAN, one of the first MAC-over-IP (overlay) virtual networking solutions is definitely a major improvement over traditional VLAN-based virtual networking technologies … but not without its own scalability limitations.

When I wrote the Virtual switches need BPDU guard blog post, I speculated that you could shut down a whole HA cluster with a single BPDU-generating VM ... and got a nice confirmation during the Troopers 13 conference – ERNW specialists successfully demonstrated the attack while testing the security aspects of a public cloud implementation for a major service provider.

For more information, read their blog post (they also have a nice presentation explaining how a VM can read ESXi hard drive with properly constructed VMDK file).

Most application stacks built today rely on decades-old security paradigm: individual components of the stack (web servers, app servers, database servers, authentication servers ...) are placed in different security zones implemented with separate physical devices, VLANs or some other virtual networking mechanism of your choice.

The security zones are then connected with one or more firewalls (when I was young we used routers with packet filters), resulting in a crunchy edge with squishy core architecture.

Are you old enough to remember the days when operating systems had no file system? Fortunately I never had to deal with storing files on one of those (I was using punch cards), but miraculously you can still find the JCL DLBL/EXTENT documentation online.

On the other hand, you probably remember the days when a SCSI LUN actually referred to a physical disk connected to a computer, not an extensible virtual entity created through point-and-click exercise on a storage array.

You might wonder what the ancient history has to do with virtual networking. Don’t worry we’re getting there in a second ;)

Yesterday I wrote that it’s pretty easy to develop a VLAN provisioning application (integrating it with vCenter or System Center earns you bonus points, but even that’s not too hard), so based on the frequent “I hate using CLI to provision VLANs” rants you might wonder where all the startups developing those applications are. Simple answer: there’s no reasonably-sized market. How would I know that? We’ve been there.

I love(d) listening to the Packet Pushers podcast and came to expect the following rant in every SDN-focused episode: “I’m sick and tired of using CLI to manually provision VLANs”. Sure, we’re all in the same boat, but did you ever do something to get rid of that problem?