Welcome!

If everyone is thinking the same, someone isn't thinking

Lori MacVittie

Subscribe to Lori MacVittie: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts
Get Lori MacVittie via: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn


Related Topics: Cloud Computing, Virtualization Magazine, VMware Journal, Microsoft Developer, CIO/CTO Update, F5 Networks, Java in the Cloud, SDN Journal

Blog Feed Post

SDN Network Models

SDN models: switches and overlays

As with most new exciting (read: hyped) technology there's always some initial fragmentation that occurs in the market. Everyone wants to have their fingers in the newest pie and from that comes what musicians call "variations on a theme." The melody is the same, but the harmony and chords are enough different so as to make them appear to be different songs.

SDN is no different, and there is already some fragmentation in the basic SDN model. While ONF continues to focus on the "original" switch-based model, offerings that instead use an overlay-model are beginning to get noticed.

Not to belabor one of my favorite quotes this year but...

"If you look at the standard SDN model, [Layer 4-7 services] are applications that can basically run on the [SDN] controller platform. But that's not the only way to do them. We'll hear about different approaches. Network services for SDN are going to be a big story in 2013."

-- Brad Casemore, "Networking outlook: Controllers, Layer 4-7 will roil SDN 2013 market" [emphasis mine]

It's not just the L4-7 services that can be done "differently" then the first incarnation of SDN. It's L2-3, too, that will ultimately fragment into 2 or 3 core models, each designed to solve the same problem but having different architectural and business benefits.

For example, the switch-based SDN model relies heavily on standardization and commoditization in the network. Today that means OpenFlow-enabled switching fabrics running on commoditized hardware (note that this overlaps well with the notion of network virtualization in general, because the OpenFlow-enabled switches could be virtual or physical, depending on desire and need).

This model, however, is somewhat disruptive and capital intensive, because it requires investment in the switching fabric. That may mean upgrades to firmware or new hardware. Either way, it's disruptive. The benefits of the disruption include agility, lower operational overhead than is incurred by managing your network node by node, and a network that is ostensibly more resilient and able to adapt without human intervention.

The overlay model, on the other hand, benefits primarily from being non-disruptive. It assumes an existing, L3 IP fabric atop which it lays its own, virtual network using tunneling methodologies. Solutions like Midokura's MidoNet, VMware's Nicira and VXLAN, and Microsoft's NVGRE are overlay-based SDN models that seek to minimize disruption while enabling a physically agnostic network topology that is better suited for cloud and agile infrastructure. The flip side, of course, is that you're now managing two completely different networks, which is necessarily going to have an impact on operational overhead.

Neither of the models is perfect, and I'm sure someone from each "side" would argue the other isn't really SDN. But the notion behind SDN is to address some very real problems around network rigidity and reliance on fixed IP network strategies. Both do that, just in different ways.

Read the original blog entry...

More Stories By Lori MacVittie

Lori MacVittie is responsible for education and evangelism of application services available across F5’s entire product suite. Her role includes authorship of technical materials and participation in a number of community-based forums and industry standards organizations, among other efforts. MacVittie has extensive programming experience as an application architect, as well as network and systems development and administration expertise. Prior to joining F5, MacVittie was an award-winning Senior Technology Editor at Network Computing Magazine, where she conducted product research and evaluation focused on integration with application and network architectures, and authored articles on a variety of topics aimed at IT professionals. Her most recent area of focus included SOA-related products and architectures. She holds a B.S. in Information and Computing Science from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay, and an M.S. in Computer Science from Nova Southeastern University.