Category: Virtualization

Every time I’m discussing the VXLAN technology with a fellow networking engineer, I inevitably get the question “how will I connect this to the outside world?” Let’s assume you want to build pretty typical 3-tier application architecture (next diagram) using VXLAN-based virtual subnets and you already have firewalls and load balancers – can you use them?

The product information in this blog post is outdated - Arista, Brocade, Cisco, Dell, F5, HP and Juniper are all shipping hardware VXLAN gateways (this post has more up-to-date information). The concepts explained in the following text are still valid; however, I would encourage you to read other VXLAN-related posts on this web site or watch the VXLAN webinar to get a more recent picture.

I’ve first heard about CloudSwitch when writing about vCider. It seemed like an interesting idea and I wanted to explore the networking aspects of cloud VLAN extension for my EuroNOG presentation. My usual approach (read the documentation) failed – the documentation is not available on their web site – but I got something better: a briefing from Damon Miller, their Director of Technical Field Operations. So, this is how I understood CloudSwitch works (did I get it wrong? Write a comment!):

Just a few hours after VXLAN was launched, I received an e-mail from one of my readers asking (literally) if VXLAN was awesome or braindead. I decided to answer this question (you know the right answer is it depends) and a few others in a FastPacket blog post published by SearchNetworking.

I wrote the post before NVGRE was published and missed the “brilliant” idea of using GRE key as virtual segment ID.

Read more @ SearchNetworking

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.

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.

Immediately after VXLAN was announced @ VMworld, the twittersphere erupted in speculations and questions, many of them focusing on how VXLAN relates to OTV and LISP, and why we might need a new encapsulation method.

VXLAN, OTV and LISP are point solutions targeting different markets. VXLAN is an IaaS infrastructure solution, OTV is an enterprise L2 DCI solution and LISP is ... whatever you want it to be.

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.

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.

I’ve already written about the stupidities of risking the stability of two data centers to enable live migration of “mission critical” VMs between them. Now let’s take the discussion a step further – after hearing how critical the VM the server or application team wants to migrate is, you might be tempted to ask “and how do you ensure its high availability the rest of the time?” The response will likely be along the lines of “We’re using VMware High Availability” or even prouder “We’re using VMware Fault Tolerance to ensure even a hardware failure can’t bring it down.”