Category: Workshop

Like anyone else, I was pretty impressed with the QFabric hardware architecture when Juniper announced it, but remained way more interested in the control-plane aspects of QFabric. After all, if you want multiple switches to behave like a single device, you could either use Borg-like architecture with a single control plane entity, or implement some very clever tricks.

Nobody has yet demonstrated a 100-switch network with a single control plane (although the OpenFlow aficionados would make you believe it’s just around the corner), so it must have been something else.

Juniper has finally released the technical documentation for the QFabric virtual switch and its components (QF/Node, QF/Interconnect and QF/Director). As expected, my speculations weren’t too far off – if anything, Juniper didn’t go far enough along those lines, but we’ll get there later.

The generic hardware architecture of the QFabric switching complex has been well known for quite a while (listening to the Juniper QFabric Packet Pushers Podcast is highly recommended) – here’s a brief summary:

Two weeks after VXLAN (backed by VMware, Cisco, Citrix and Red Hat) was launched at VMworld, Microsoft, Intel, HP & Dell published NVGRE draft (Arista and Broadcom are cleverly sitting on both chairs) which solves the same problem in a slightly different way.

If you’re still wondering why we need VXLAN and NVGRE, read my VXLAN post (and the one describing how VXLAN, OTV and LISP fit together).

It’s obvious the NVGRE draft was a rushed affair, its only significant and original contribution to knowledge is the idea of using the lower 24 bits of the GRE key field to indicate the Tenant Network Identifier (but then, lesser ideas have been patented time and again). Like with VXLAN, most of the real problems are handwaved to other or future drafts.

HP has commissioned an IRF network test that came to absolutely astonishing conclusions: vMotion runs almost twice as fast across two links bundled in a port channel than across a single link (with the other one being blocked by STP). The test report contains one other gem, this one a result of incredible creativity of HP marketing:

For disaster recovery, switches within an IRF domain can be deployed across multiple data centers. According to HP, a single IRF domain can link switches up to 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) apart.

You know my opinions about stretched cluster… and the more down-to-earth part of HP Networking (the people writing the documentation) agrees with me.

During my visit to South Africa someone told me that he got 6VPE working over an L2TP connection ... and that you should “use the other VRF attribute, not lcp:interface-config” to make it work. A few days ago one of the readers asked me the same question and although I was able to find several relevant documents, I wanted to see it working in my lab.

A while ago someone sent me the following comment as part of a lengthy discussion focusing on Nexus 1000V: “My SE tells me that the latest 1000V release has rewritten the LACP code so that it operates entirely within the VEM. VSM will be out of the picture for LACP negotiations. I guess there have been problems.”

If you’re not convinced you should be running LACP between the ESX hosts and the physical switches, read this one (and this one). Ready? Let’s go.

In one of my vCloud Director Networking Infrastructure rants I wrote “if they had decided to use IP encapsulation, I would have applauded.” It’s time to applaud: Cisco has just demonstrated Nexus 1000V supporting MAC-over-IP encapsulation for vCloud Director isolated networks at VMworld, solving at least some of the scalability problems MAC-in-MAC encapsulation has.

Nexus 1000V VEM will be able to (once the new release becomes available) encapsulate MAC frames generated by virtual machines residing in isolated segments into UDP packets exchanged between VEMs.

In the next few days, I'll write about some of the interesting topics we’ve been discussing during the last week’s fantastic on-site workshop with Ian Castleman and his team. To get us started, here’s a short video describing BGP/IGP network design principles. It’s taken straight from my Building IPv6 Service Provider Core webinar (recording), but the principles apply equally well to large enterprise networks.

Following a series of soft switching articles written by Nicira engineers (hint: they are using a similar approach as Juniper’s QFabric marketing team), Greg Ferro wrote a scathing Soft Switching Fails at Scale reply.

While I agree with many of his arguments, the sad truth is that with the current state of server infrastructure virtualization we need soft switching regardless of the hardware vendors’ claims about the benefits of 802.1Qbg (EVB/VEPA), 802.1Qbh (port extenders) or VM-FEX.

Reading Cisco’s marketing materials, VM-FEX (the feature probably known as VN-Link before someone went on a FEX-branding spree) seems like a fantastic idea: VMs running in an ESX host are connected directly to virtual physical NICs offered by the Palo adapter and then through point-to-point virtual links to the upstream switch where you can deploy all sorts of features the virtual switch embedded in the ESX host still cannot do. As you might imagine, the reality behind the scenes is more complex.