Category: OpenFlow

Security groups (or Endpoint Groups if you’re a Cisco ACI fan) are a nice traffic policy abstraction: instead of dealing with subnets and ACLs, define groups of hosts and the rules of traffic control between them… and let the orchestration system deal with IP addresses and TCP/UDP port numbers.

When I finished my SDN workshop @ Interop Las Vegas (including a chapter on OpenFlow limitations), some attendees started wondering whether they should even consider OpenFlow in their SDN deployments. My answer: don’t blame the tool if people use it incorrectly.

Two days later, I discovered HP is one of those companies that knows how to use that tool.

I was listening to one of the HP SDN Packet Pushers podcasts in which Greg made an interesting comment along the lines of “people say that OpenFlow doesn’t scale, but what HP does with its IMC is it verifies the amount of TCAM in the switches, checks whether it can install new flows, and throws an alert if it runs out of TCAM.”

My good friend Tom Hollingsworth wrote a great blog post about hypermyopia in the networking industry. I agree with most everything he wrote (I have to – I’m always telling people to focus on business needs and to change their mentality before relying on shiny new gizmos), but I still think it’s crucial to consider the technology used in products we’re looking at.

I’m still convinced that architectures with centralized control planes (and that includes solutions relying on OpenFlow controllers) cannot scale. On the other hand, Big Switch Networks is shipping Big Cloud Fabric, and they claim they solved the problem. Obviously I wanted to figure out what’s going on and Andy Shaw and Rob Sherwood were kind enough to explain the interesting details of their solution.

Long story short: Big Switch Networks significantly extended OpenFlow.

Listening to some SDN pundits one gets an impression that SDN brings peace to Earth, solves all networking problems and makes networking engineers obsolete.

Cynical jokes aside, and ignoring inevitable bugs, is controller-based networking really more reliable than what we do today?

If you want to get a free copy of my SDN and OpenFlow – The Hype and the Harsh Reality book, download it now. The offer will expire by October 20th.

After the initial onslaught of SDN washing, four distinct approaches to SDN have started to emerge, from centralized control plane architectures to smart reuse of existing protocols.

As always, each approach has its benefits and drawbacks, and there’s no universally best solution. You just got four more (somewhat immature) tools in your toolbox. And now for the details.

The latest release of Cisco Nexus 1000V for vSphere can handle twice as many vSphere hosts as the previous one (250 instead of 128). Cisco probably did a lot of code polishing to improve Nexus 1000V scalability, but I’m positive most of the improvement comes from interesting architectural changes.

If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you know that I spent a lot of time during the last three years debunking SDN myths, explaining the limitations of OpenFlow and pointing out other technologies one could use to program the network.

During the summer of 2014 I organized my SDN- and OpenFlow-related blog posts into a digital book. I want to make this information as useful and as widely distributed as possible – for a limited time you can download the PDF free of charge.