Category: virtualization

A few years ago Cisco introduced an interesting concept to the data center networking: fabric extenders, devices acting like remote linecards of a central switch (Juniper’s “revolutionary” QFabric looks very similar from a distance; the only major difference seems to be local switching in the QF/Nodes). Cisco’s proprietary technology used in its FEX products became the basis for 802.1Qbh, an IEEE draft that is supposed to standardize the port extender architecture.

If you’re not familiar with the FEX products, read my “Port or Fabric Extenders?” article before continuing ... and disregard most of what it says about 802.1Qbh.

The Edge Virtual Bridging (EVB; 802.1Qbg) standard solves two important layer-2-based virtualization issues:

• Automatic provisioning of access switches based on hypervisor-signaled information (discussed in the EVB eases VLAN configuration pains article)
• Multiplexing of multiple logical 802.1Q links over a single physical link.

Logical link multiplexing might seem a solution in search of a problem until you discover that VMware-related design documents usually recommend using 6 to 10 NICs per server – an approach that either wastes switch ports or is hard to implement with blade servers’ mezzanine cards (due to limited number of backplane connections).

Jason sent me an interesting question a few days ago: “assuming a vSwitch *did* support MPLS/VPN PE router functionality, what type of protocol support would be needed on the access layer switches?”

While the MPLS/VPN support in hypervisor switches remains in the realm of science fiction, it’s worth knowing that there are at least five different transport options you can use between PE-routers. Here they are, from the most decoupled to the most tightly coupled ones:

I got totally fed up with the currently popular “flat-earth with long-distance bridging” architecture paradigm while developing the Data Center Interconnects webinar. It all started with the layer-2 hypervisor switches and lack of decent L3 network-side solutions; promoting non-scalable cloudy solutions doesn’t help either.

The network infrastructure would scale better if the hypervisors would work as MPLS/VPN PE-routers, but even MPLS would hit scalability limits when the number of servers grows into tens of thousands. The only truly scalable solution is IP-over-IP or MAC-over-IP implemented in the hypervisor switches.

I tried to organize all these thoughts in the “How to build a scalable IaaS cloud network infrastructure” article that was recently published by SearchTelecom ... and just a few days after the article was published, Brad Hedlund pointed me to Infrastructure as a Service Builder’s Guide document, which is saying almost the same thing (and coming to flawed conclusions because they had to promote OpenFlow and NEC).

Whenever I write about vCloud Director Networking Infrastructure (vCDNI), be it a rant or a more technical post, I get comments along the lines of “What are the network guys going to do once the infrastructure has been provisioned? With vCDNI there is no need to keep network admins full time.”

Once we have a scalable solution that will be able to stand on its own in a large data center, most smart network admins will be more than happy to get away from provisioning VLANs and focus on other problems. After all, most companies have other networking problems beyond data center switching.

Challenge: If you want to deploy virtual machines belonging to different security zones within the same physical host, you have to isolate them. VLANs are the most common approach. If you want to migrate a running VM from one host to another while preserving its user sessions, you usually have to rely on bridging. The set of VLANs needed on a trunk link between the hypervisor host and access switch is thus unpredictable (more information in my VMware Networking Deep Dive webinar)

Solution#1 (painful): Configure all possible VLANs on the trunk link. Stretched VLANs spanning the whole data center are an ideal ingredient of a major meltdown.

A while ago I decided to figure out how well various vendors support virtualized networking (one of the answers: some of the solutions don’t scale) and what can be done with virtual network appliances (I was pleasantly surprised by F5’s BIG-IP LTM VE and Vyatta). You’ll find some of my other thoughts on this subject in the Virtual network appliances: Benefits and drawbacks article published by SearchNetworking.

Duncan Epping, the author of fantastic Yellow Bricks virtualization blog tweeted a very valid question following my vCDNI scalability (or lack thereof) post: “What you feel would be suitable alternative to vCD-NI as clearly VLANs will not scale well?”

Let’s start with the very basics: modern data center switches support anywhere between 1K and 4K (the theoretical limit based on 802.1q framing) VLANs. If you need more than 1K VLANs, you’ve either totally messed up your network design or you’re a service provider offering multi-tenant services (recently relabeled by your marketing department as IaaS cloud). Service Providers had to cope with multi-tenant networks for decades ... only they haven’t realized those were multi-tenant networks and called them VPNs. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a technology out there that’s been field-proven, known to scale, and works over switched Ethernet.

When VMware launched its vCloud Director Networking Infrastructure, Greg Ferro (of the Packet Pushers Podcast fame) and myself were very skeptical about its scaling capabilities, more so as it uses MAC-in-MAC encapsulation and bridging was never known for its scaling properties. However, Greg’s VMware contacts claimed that vCDNI scales to thousands of physical servers and Greg wanted to do a podcast about it.

As always, we prepared a few questions in advance, including “How are broadcasts, multicasts and unknown unicasts handled in vCDNI-based private networks?” and “what happens when a single VM goes crazy?” For one reason or another, the podcast never happened. After analyzing Wireshark traces of vCDNI traffic, I probably know why that’s the case.

If I could design my dream data center with total disregard to today’s limitations (and technologies from an alternate universe), it would have optimal connectivity between any two endpoints (real or virtual), no limits on VM mobility and on-demand L4-7 services insertion (be it firewalling, load balancing or something else) ... all of that implemented on truly scalable trombone-free networking infrastructure (in a dream world I don’t care whether it’s called routing or bridging).

A few days ago I wanted to test some of the new networking features VMware introduced with the vShield product family. I almost started hacking together a few old servers (knowing I would have wasted countless hours with utmost stupidities like trying to get the DVDs to boot), but then realized that we already have the exact equipment I need: a UCS system with two Fabric Interconnects and a chassis with five blade servers – the lab for our Data Center training classes (the same lab has a few Nexus switches, but that’s another story).

I managed to book lab access for a few days, which was all I needed. Next step: get a VMware cluster installed on it. As I never touched the UCS system before, I asked Dejan Strmljan (one of our UCS gurus) to help me.

Yesterday I described how the lack of LACP support in VMware’s vSwitch and vDS can limit the load balancing options offered by the upstream switches. The situation gets totally out-of-hand when you connect an ESX server with two uplinks to two (or more) switches that are part of a Multi-chassis Link Aggregation (MLAG) cluster.

Let’s expand the small network described in the previous post a bit, adding a second ESX server and another switch. Both ESX servers are connected to both switches (resulting in a fully redundant design) and the switches have been configured as a MLAG cluster. Link aggregation is not used between the physical switches and ESX servers due to lack of LACP support in ESX.

This is very old news to any seasoned system or network administrator dealing with VMware/vSphere: the vSwitch and vNetwork Distributed Switch (vDS) do not support Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP). Multiple uplinks from the same physical server cannot be bundled into a Link Aggregation Group (LAG, also known as port channel) unless you configure static port channel on the adjacent switch’s ports.

When you use the default (per-VM) load balancing mechanism offered by vSwitch, the drawbacks caused by lack of LACP support are usually negligible, so most engineers are not even aware of what’s (not) going on behind the scenes.

During the Data Center 3.0 webinar I always mention that you can connect a VMware ESX server (with embedded virtual switch) to the network through multiple active uplinks without link aggregation. The response is very predictable: I get a few “how does that work” questions in the next seconds.

VMware did a great job with the virtual switch embedded in the VMware hypervisor (vNetwork Standard Switch – vSS – or vNetwork Distributed Switch – vDS): it uses special forwarding rules (I call them split horizon switching, Cisco UCS documentation uses the term End Host Mode) that prevent forwarding loops without resorting to STP or port blocking.

The vCloud Director: hand the network over to server admins post received several fantastic well-reasoned comments that you should read in their entirety. Jónatan Natti correctly pointed out (among other things) that we’ve often heard “And now a networking vendor is trying to persuade people with limited exposure to […] issues to rebuild […]" where […] could stand for Voice/PBX, SNA or storage.

Update 2020-12-27: The original blog post was written in 2010 when vCloud Director and the weird MAC-in-MAC encapsulation it used was all the craze in some circles (and in particular in vendor slide decks).

The hype I was making fun of didn’t last long. The encapsulation quickly got replaced by VXLAN, the whole product died a few years later, and now VMware NSX-T and VMware on AWS are the new miracle technologies.