Hi David,
Honestly I think we are getting more into implementation then
standardization debate.
What I call a softswitch can be either part of the linux kernel entirely
as a loadable module, can be partially in the kernel and partially in
the user space or if you follow NETMAP's direct memory mapping from
interface to user space could sit completely there.
Examples of softswitches which I am experimenting with is as you said
one from VMWare, the other most popular is OVS, there is LINK released
recently and there is at least few more in the works which would be
partially sitting in the end-system kernel or the kernel and user space.
At least this is what I meant by using the term "embedded".
The main point I think is that the L2/L3 virtualization/separation will
be happening in all of the above cases which share one very important
common characteristic - thay are all residing on the end host.
Best regards,
R.
Robert,
We may be in semi-violent agreement ...
All of current running production data centers and those which I am
working on to be shortly deployed assume NVE (Network Virtualization
Edge) like functionality is embedded within the end-host.
So far, so good. As you're using the terminology, the Nexus 1000V is
software that deployed in the end-host.
Nonetheless, the Nexus 1000V a logically separate networking component
(network admin views it as a layer 2 switch that is easily distinguishable
from the hypervisor in which it runs), and the same is true to a lesser
extent of the native softswitches in at least the VMware and Hyper-V
hypervisors (they tend to be more oriented towards server admin management).
But as one requirement I am very interested in making sure the real use
case of embedded softswitch in the end system is captured and documented
in the problem statement document.
Depending on what you mean by "embedded", we may be in semi-violent
agreement.
Please define "embedded" as you're using the term.
Thanks,
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert
Raszuk
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-
statement-02
David,
Just as a data point ..
All of current running production data centers and those which I am
working on to be shortly deployed assume NVE (Network Virtualization
Edge) like functionality is embedded within the end-host.
It can be a form of prioprietary softswitch, opensource softswitch or
any other flavor of kernel module acting as such softswitch.
I am not stating everyone does the same .. some may use TOR as a
softswitch or even furthere though.
But as one requirement I am very interested in making sure the real use
case of embedded softswitch in the end system is captured and documented
in the problem statement document.
Thx,
R.
Actually I do not see that those two are need to be decoupled. Linux
kernel with some additional enhancement module can act as NVE. Tenants
are just connected to the NVE over normal bridge interfaces by the
co-located hypervisor.
The salient question is not what's possible, but what's actually being
done ("running code"), as nvo3 can't succeed if it requires major
hypervisor rewrites.
Linux is not the system that supports hypervisors. The Cisco Nexus
1000V softswitches are examples where there is a strong decoupling
and that softswitch is available for at least two non-Linux hypervisors,
suggesting similar decoupling in the system architectures for those
hypervisors.
Thanks,
--David
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
