NWCTV

The Upside Of The Software-Defined Datacenter

50%
50%

Why is managing traffic and workloads no longer a worry in the software-defined datacenter? Ivan Pepelnjak, chief technology advisor at NIL Data Communications, explains the benefits of a well crafted datacenter network.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Susan Fogarty
50%
50%
Susan Fogarty,
User Rank: Strategist
4/23/2014 | 12:40:40 PM
Who cares?
This is a pretty bold observation from Ivan -- you need to be awfully confident in your design to stop worrying about how it's performing. Raise your hand if you can say that you don't care how the workloads in your data center network perform. Bueller...Bueller?
macsgreg
50%
50%
macsgreg,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/23/2014 | 4:28:35 PM
Bold Statement
Wow. That's a pretty bold statement, but I think it makes sense. Bascially, Ivan is saying that if you do everything right with your software defined datacenter design, you have nothing to worry about. I'm not so sure about that. There's always something to worry about.
Jamescon
50%
50%
Jamescon,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/23/2014 | 5:20:23 PM
And, the hardware?
Ivan. Obviously the software is the key, but to strike this type of balance with every node getting the same performance, how much work has to be done on the hardware side to lay the foundation?
aditshar1
50%
50%
aditshar1,
User Rank: Ninja
4/24/2014 | 4:25:51 AM
Re: And, the hardware?
Good questions @James, infact there is curiosity between management segement people to understand SDN decoupling hardware from software.
jgherbert
50%
50%
jgherbert,
User Rank: Ninja
4/24/2014 | 1:36:55 PM
Wait, What?
So yes, but this isn't just an upside of SDDC, although it's an easy to do when the bulk of your traffic is handily IP encapsulated in an overlay protocol.

Leaf/Spine as an architecture running, say, TRILL (FabricPath for you Cisco fans out there) or Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) also supports regular non-overlay networking for the exact same reasons that Ivan lays out - multiple, equidistant paths between every node, at layer 2. 

In other words, I agree that if you are running overlays, there's a lot of sense in building a highly scalable L3 fabric (like L/S). On the other hand, if you aren't running overlays, or you have a lot of traffic that isn't encapsulated, you can still benefit in a non-SDDC by running a smarter fabric protocol that does (please forgive me) layer 2 routing.

 

 
ioshints
100%
0%
ioshints,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/25/2014 | 4:34:46 AM
Re: Wait, What?
Absolutely agree with you, but I'd still go with overlay virtual networks - they reduce the size of the failure- and flooding domain, number of moving parts, and offer nice isolation between physical and virtual worlds.
aditshar1
50%
50%
aditshar1,
User Rank: Ninja
4/25/2014 | 6:34:09 AM
Re: Wait, What?
One application of SDN is the IaaS, but how do we see SDN is managed network services.
ReturnoftheMus
100%
0%
ReturnoftheMus,
User Rank: Moderator
4/25/2014 | 6:36:50 AM
Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
Dare I say it, but it looks as though Juniper got it right the first time with QFabric, only gawd knows what Cisco were playing at first with FabricPath, then DFA and now ACI.
jgherbert
50%
50%
jgherbert,
User Rank: Ninja
4/26/2014 | 7:55:16 PM
Re: Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
*smiles* 

Cisco are certainly testing out a number of different solutions before, presumably, iterating their way to the one true way, aren't they?

As for Juniper getting it right with QFabric, the only thing they really got wrong in some respects was announcing it so very far in advance of having a deployable solution. That wasn't so much a shot in the foot as an axe blow at the top of the leg. How do you recover from that? Oh, I also suspect that trying to present it like it's magic, and not giving an explanation up front on how it achieved what it achieved was also a bad idea. Geeks don't like magic black boxes that do stuff through mystery methods.

 
aditshar1
50%
50%
aditshar1,
User Rank: Ninja
4/28/2014 | 12:05:52 AM
Re: Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
We have similar kind of approach in new security environment that SDSec, any reviews on same.
ReturnoftheMus
50%
50%
ReturnoftheMus,
User Rank: Moderator
4/28/2014 | 6:19:05 AM
Re: Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
We've heard them all the last 18 months, the facts are which ever way you look at it, it's all defined in software one way or the other, the Cloud Security Alliance are referring to it as the Software Defined Perimeter.
jgherbert
50%
50%
jgherbert,
User Rank: Ninja
4/28/2014 | 8:39:51 AM
Re: Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
First of all, I'd like to hand out a software defined slap to the CSA for creating yet another SDA (Software Defined Acronym).

That aside, the CSA's SDP proposal seems to address one very specific - if useful - scenario. From the document you linked (and thank you, it was an interesting read):


SDPs require endpoints to authenticate and be authorized first before obtaining network access to protected servers, and then, encrypted connections are created in real time between requesting systems and application infrastructure.

 

That's not quite the same as generic edge security to me. If I undersand correctly, SDP would not address anything other than a subset of connectivity between known hosts that are privileged / pre-authorized. It would probably do that very well, but whether it's any use will depend heavily on the usage patterns for a given data center.

And yes, as you suggest, it's all software one way or another, and has been for a long time :) 

 

MarciaNWC
100%
0%
MarciaNWC,
User Rank: Strategist
4/28/2014 | 1:42:06 PM
Re: Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
"Sofware-defined slap" -- priceless! I agree, there are way too many software-defined acronyms. When a security vendor touted "software-defined protection" earlier this year, I really lost patience.
jgherbert
50%
50%
jgherbert,
User Rank: Ninja
4/29/2014 | 9:37:56 PM
Re: Yes, but where's the complexity in that approach?
Heh. The danger is that the words "Software Defined" - if they have not already - become completely meaningless. SD-Washing is already joining the ranks of Cloud-washing and similar because the marketing wonks think they need the sticker on the box...
Cartoon
Slideshows
Audio Interviews
Archived Audio Interviews
Jeremy Schulman, founder of Schprockits, a network automation startup operating in stealth mode, joins us to explore whether networking professionals all need to learn programming in order to remain employed.
White Papers
Register for Network Computing Newsletters
Current Issue
2014 State of Unified Communications
2014 State of Unified Communications
If you thought consumerization killed UC, think again: 70% of our 488 respondents have or plan to put systems in place. Of those, 34% will roll UC out to 76% or more of their user base. And there’s some good news for UCaaS providers.
Video
Twitter Feed