Network Virtualization as I understand it

For some reason, I had a difficult time with the basic concept of Network Virtualization.  VMware equates network virtualization to Server Virtualization.  With server virtualization you can deploy an application to any physical server in your environment easily because the Server OS that the application resides on is abstracted from the network.  This gives you an incredible amount of flexibility operationally.  You can easily manage OS images, clone virtual machines, create entire test environments with almost a push of a button. It streamlines server deployments because you can now deploy servers based on templates with almost no regard to the underlying hardware.

I’ve done server virtualization long enough that I just get it.  It seems natural to this point.  What doesn’t seem as natural is Network Virtualization.  I re-read the VMware post announcing the NSX product and it all kind of just clicked for me.  I had a problem disassociating the physical access layer with the abstracted network component.  After all it makes sense that the device that the port is connected to is the device that controls the behavior of the device of the network.

Source VMware

Source VMware

The Physical Infrastructure really is just that that the physical infrastructure.  It’s the assurance that every device is physically connected to the network.  It can be via Token Ring, Frame Relay, Ethernet or ATM.  In theory it can even be a overlay network.  It really doesn’t matter from a logical perspective.  You have to ensure that the physical infrastructure is reliable and meets the latency requirements of your applications but that’s it (maybe a bit oversimplified).  Now that there is physical connectivity a solution like NSX can take over.  You create virtual ports and associate them to physical ports or other virtual ports on virtual switches.  These virtual ports can then be assigned to a virtualized Firewall, Switch, Router or IDS ports based on the need.

Cisco has a similar device level approach with their ISR architecture.  A port on an ISR router can be an IDS, Firewall or Router port as examples.  Network virtualization just takes the abstraction one level higher and broadens the capability of each individual port.  You now eliminate physical limitations of the device and virtualization the capability of the port.

The virtualized network devices can then have all the characteristics we associate with server virtualization.  They can be cloned, copied, vMotioned, DRS’d and snapshot.  Many of the operational advantages associated with server virtualization is now available to us on the network.  The only requirement again is that there is physical connectivity and VMware is able to do the easy part which is create a network Hypervisor capable of creating the robust abstraction layer needed to manage all of these dynamic ports.  I can see a pretty significant challenge in creating a high speed/low latency fabric.  I can also see where troubleshooting physical vs. logical performance will be a challenge.  However, these were some of the same challenges server virtualization faced during the early years as well.

I haven’t been excited by networking since I got a sample loaner Gigabit switch back in 2001 from Cisco.  This is actually a pretty big deal and I look forward to seeing a shipping product from VMware and customer feedback.  Your thoughts, is this a operation model that translates to your network?

How long can Cisco and VMware be friends?

I’ve always felt kind of uneasy about the Cisco/VMware relationship.  Server hardware provider’s have to support VMware because consolidation and management based on virtualized compute has become a no-brainer.   This relationship has allow hardware companies to continue to sell servers by add value to the VMware stack.  Likewise, VMware is pursuing Network Virtualization with full steam.  Network Virtualization doesn’t have the same driver in the form of consolidation but they do in operations.  

In this guest post over on SearchSDN, I ask the question is Will the VMware-Cisco Relationship Become Irrelevant? 

http://searchsdn.techtarget.com/feature/Will-the-VMware-Cisco-partnership-become-irrelevant

Cisco Distributed Nexus 1000v closer to reality in Hyper-V

Cisco Distributed Nexus 1000v closer to reality in Hyper-V

 

One of the major differences between vSphere and KVM, Hyper-V and XenServer has been the ability to integrate 3rd party distributed switches.  VMware vSphere has had the ability to support Nexus 1000v for a few years now while it has been “coming” to Hyper-V for awhile now.  Well I missed the announcement of the public beta for Nexus 1000v on Hyper-V.  The below Cisco blog gives some detail of the state of their distributed switch in Windows Server 2012. 

Vive la Nexus 1000V on Microsoft Hyper-V!.

Who moved my cheese?

There are certain tech companies that I’ve found myself to be fond of over the years. They include Novell, Microsoft, VMware and Cisco. These tech giants have helped me establish a long successful career. Eachwere at one point disruptive and grew to become market leaders due to their innovation and their willingness to question the status quo and change how we look at enterprise tech. The time has long past thatNovell found itself to be a heavy influence in enterprise technology. The other three find themselves in the position of industry leaders being threatened by new innovation.

Microsoft is getting assaulting on many fronts and no longer has a self haven in Server, Desktop Productivity or even desktop operating systems. Their mobile strategy has been the butt of many jokes. VMware is being challenged by all people Microsoft along with KVM, OpenStack and AWS. And Cisco seems intent on protecting their enterprise hardware market through denying trends that seem to ultimately benefit the very same customers.

As a technology thought leader to my customers, I find myself fighting the urge to be nostalgic about the companies and technologies that helped build my career. I hold a legacy MCSE from back in the late 90’s and a CCNA from 2003 I believe. I built my first SaaS infrastructure using ESX 3.5. So, I’m a little prejudice to these technologies. But, I’m charged with helping organizations see ahead of the curve so that they can leverage technology to achieve their organization’s mission while investing wisely in technology. With this charge, I can’t afford to be loyal to any specific brand or technology. If they don’t keep their disruptive spirits these companies can find themselves looking up from the mat like Novell has found itself. Worst, I could find myself looking around wondering, “Who Moved My Cheese?”

cheese

That’s what VirtualizedGeek is about. Not loyal to a single company or technology but helping spark the discussion about what solutions truly enables enterprises to achieve their mission.

Surprise: Cisco doesn’t like SDN

CiscoSome pretty interesting quotes from Cisco’s CTO’s reveals that Cisco will try to leverage their dominance in enterprise networking to try and stave off the challenge of SDN.  In a NetworkWorld article Cisco’s CTO is quoted as saying:

“We see the network as a platform where applications can be programmed, where information can be processed and where data and business processes can be much more efficient”

To me this sounded very similar to the overall goal of SDN.  However, Cisco isn’t looking to separate the control plane from the hardware but use protocols and basically an API to allow two way control from the network and application layer.  The control plane would still exist within Cisco’s hardware layer which would allow them to maintain their dominance.  According to the article they are looking for enterprise partners to help drive the requirements and testing of the concept.

I think the argument for SDN still exists by leveraging the program interface as just another feature managed via a centralized control plane.  Just like any other hardware based improvement is given new API’s and Management tools in an OS this programmatic network would just be an option that is abstracted by SDN.  I would say that Cisco is fighting a losing battle but they have customer’s ears and could push this strategy while SDN is still forming; much like other standards they’ve pushed while the industry took time to settle.

I’d encourage you to read the article at NetworkWorld.  It was very enlightening to know where Cisco is headed versus where the primary discussion has been for managing the future enterprise data center.

 

Hold both a CCIE and VCP

A while back I brought the VMWare vSphere training videos from TrainSignal.  I was surprised to see the instructor had both his CCIE and VCP.

These two certifications are probably the most highly sought certifications in the IT industry.  I remember the horror stories of people trying to write the CCIE and their many failed attempts.  I even had delusions grandeur considering going for the certification myself.  I soon discovered I didn’t have the love for networking needed to commit to the certification.  It may no longer be the guaranteed meal ticket it once was but it’s still a highly sought certification.

Over the past few years, I’ve noticed a huge uptick in the number of job postings looking for a VCP.  The VCP is a difficult certification to achieve. The candidate has to take an official VMWare course which could be a minimum of a $2500 investment.   As a result many self-taught people (such as me) are filtered out from being able to sit for the exam.

I did a quick search on Theladders.com for the keywords “CCIE” and “VCP”.  I found it interesting and not at all surprising that the hiring companies for both certifications were primarily IT service providers, or telco’s in the case of the CCIE.  However, the CCIE still carries a bit of weight in the enterprise.  I saw several job posts for fortune 500/non-IT companies such as GMC and financial institutions looking for candidates with the CCIE.  It still may be a couple of years before the same can be said of the VMware certifications

I don’t know how practical it is to hold both certifications.  I believe virtualization has grown into its own category/discipline within the IT industry.  VMware even offers a CCIE like certification in the VCDX.  There are obviously some synergies between the disciplines and advantages to being certified in both.  I’ve studied and obtained Cisco certifications in the past and it takes a great deal of regular hands on experience to maintain the CCNA and CCNP let alone the CCIE and VCP.

I’m of the opinion that a combination of VCP, CCNA/CCNP and a storage certification would be more valuable and maintainable for an infrastructure engineer/architect than the combination of the CCIE and VCP.  It’s my experience that from a practical knowledge perspective an infrastructure architect doesn’t need to be an expert in all three areas (Virtualization, Disk, and Network) but rather an expert in one area and strong in the other two.  It will be a rare and undesirable situation where one person would be called upon to be the SME for all three disciplines.

This topic has made me look at my bookshelf and think about dusting off my CCNP study guides.  I’m glad that the taught has passed.

Why No True Network Virtualization

So, I want to talk about network virtualization from another angle.  We know that with VMware you can create virtual switches and even outsource the process to the Cisco Nexus product line.  I think this should actually go farther out to include chassis virtualization. 

I worked for a pretty big hosting provider for a very short period of time and one of the issues we ran into was multi-tenancy.  For a smaller enterprise data center multi-tenancy isn’t too big of an issue that VRF and the like or even multiple chassis wouldn’t solve.  But for larger data centers this becomes an issue.  There are a couple of issues to address from physical space consideration to management and cable plant issues.

There are many instances where both internal and external customers would like the peace of mind that comes with virtualized hardware on the network side of the equation.  A good example would be a customized solution for a single customer or a set of customers in a shared cabling plant.

Today if you want to create this type of environment in the Cisco IOS world you’d do it via ACL’s, Route Reflectors and etc…  Why not just create a virtualized switch inside of the chassis?  A completely separate instance of the IOS to just simplify the whole configuration.  It would allow you to assign separate security settings for each instance.  I don’t know something like what Extreme has been doing for the past few years http://tinyurl.com/vojus.

I figured if Cisco can create a server with 512GB of RAM they could be able to virtualize their core offering – IOS.

I don’t think this is too farfetched of a request.  I like to play around with GNS3 located at www.gns3.net.  It’s a great little tool that is actually a hypervisor for Cisco IOS on Wintel platforms.  It’s not meant for production but technically there’s nothing stopping you from using it to do some really cool stuff in a lab.  You can map physical or virtual interfaces (think VMware workstation) to the logical Ethernet ports of the virtual routers.  You could in theory create a virtual DC of VMware servers on a single workstation running a virtual MPLS end node.  Connect that to another workstation running another virtual DC and MPLS node and have you a nice MPLS cloud running on one or both workstation.  If you have a beefy enough machine it could all run on one workstation.  If Cisco sends me one of those blade deals, I’d be more than happy to let you know how well it works.

My biggest complaint about the product is that you can’t virtualize Cisco switches.  You can do routers on a stick because you can still associate a physical NIC on your workstation to one connected to a Cisco Switch.  I’ve found it an invaluable tool for creating lab and test scenario’s.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 284 other followers

%d bloggers like this: