Thursday, March 5, 2015

EVPN. The Essential Parts.

In a blog post back in October 2013 I said I would write about the essential parts of EVPN that make it a powerful foundation for data center network virtualization.  Well just when you thought I'd fallen off the map, I'm back.  :)

After several years as an Internet draft, EVPN has finally emerged as RFC7432.  To celebrate this occasion I created a presentation, EVPN - The Essential Parts.  I hope that shedding more light on EVPN's internals will help make the decision to use (or to not use) EVPN easier for operators.  If you are familiar with IEEE 802.1D (Bridging), IEEE 802.1Q (VLAN), IEEE 802.3ad (LAG), IETF RFC4364 (IPVPN) and, to some degree, IETF RFC6513 (NGMVPN) then understanding EVPN will come naturally to you.

Use cases are intentionally left out of this presentation as I prefer the reader to creatively consider whether their own use cases can be supported with the basic features that I describe.  The presentation also assumes that the reader has a decent understanding of overlay tunneling (MPLS, VXLAN, etc) since the use of tunneling for overlay network virtualization is not unique to EVPN.

Let me know your thoughts below and I will try to expand/improve/correct this presentation or create other presentations to address them.  You can also find me on Twitter at @aldrin_isaac.

Here is the presentation again => EVPN - The Essential Parts

Update:  I found this excellent presentation on EVPN by Alastair Johnson that is a must read.  I now have powerpoint envy :)

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Evolving the data center network core

As complex functions that were historically shoehorned into the network core move out to the edge where they belong, data center core network operators can now focus on improving the experience for the different types of applications that share the network.  Furthermore, with fewer vertically scaled systems giving way to many horizontally scaled systems, the economics of data center bandwidth and connectivity needs to change.

I’ve jotted down some thoughts for improving the data center core network along the lines of adding bandwidth, managing congestion and keeping costs down.

Solve bandwidth problems with more bandwidth


Adding bandwidth had been a challenge for the last several years owing to the Ethernet industry not being able to maintain the historical Ethernet uplink:downlink speedup of 10:1, and at the same time not bringing down the cost of Ethernet optics fast enough.  Big web companies started to solve the uplink bandwidth speed problem in the same way they had solved the application scaling problem -- scale uplinks horizontally.  In their approach, the role of traditional bridging is limited to the edge switch (if used at all), and load-balancing to the edge is done using simple IP ECMP across a “fabric” topology.  The number of spine nodes on a spine-leaf fabric is constrained only by port counts and the number of simultaneous ECMP next hops supported by the hardware.  By horizontally scaling uplinks, it became possible to create non-blocking or near non-blocking networks even when uplink ports speeds are not the 10x of access they once were.  Aggregating lower speed ports in this way also benefits from the ability to use lower-end switches at a lower cost.

Using ECMP does come with it’s own demons.  Flow based hashing isn’t very good when the number of next hops isn’t large.  This leads to imperfect load balancing which results in imperfect bandwidth utilization and nonuniform experience for flows in the presence of larger (elephant) flows.  To address this issue, some large web companies look to use up to 64 ECMP paths to increase the efficiency of ECMP flow placement across the backbone.  However even with the best ECMP flow placement, it's better that uplink port speeds are faster than downlink speeds to avoid the inevitable sharing of an uplink by elephant flows from multiple downstream ports.

Yet another approach goes back to the use of chassis based switches with internal CLOS fabrics -- most chassis backplanes do a better job of load balancing, in some cases by slicing packets into smaller chunks at the source card before sending them in parallel across multiple fabric links and reassembling the packet at the destination card.

Managing Congestion


Although the best way to solve a bandwidth problem is with more bandwidth, even with a non-blocking fabric network congestion will still occur.  An example is with events that trigger multiple (N) hosts to send data simultaneously to a single host.  Assuming all hosts have the same link speed, the sum of the traffic rates of the senders is N times the speed of the receiver and will result in congestion at the receiver’s port.  This problem is common in scale-out processing models such as mapreduce.  In other cases, congestion is not a result of a distributed algorithm, but competing elephant flows that by nature attempt to consume as much bandwidth as the network will allow.

Once the usual trick of applying as much bandwidth as the checkbook will allow has been performed, it’s time for some other tools to come into play -- class-based weighted queuing, bufferbloat eliminating AQM techniques and more flexible flow placement.

Separate traffic types:

The standard technique of managing fairness across traffic types by placing different traffic types in different weighted queues is extremely powerful and sadly underutilized in the data center network.  One of the reasons for the underuse is woefully deficient queuing in many merchant silicon based switches.  

The ideal switch would support a reasonable number of queues where each queue has sufficient, dedicated and capped depth.  My preference is 8 egress queues per port that can each hold approximately 20 jumbo frames on a 10GE link.  Bursty applications may need a bit more for their queues and applications with fewer flows can in many cases be afforded less.  Proper use of queueing and scheduling ensures that bandwidth hungry traffic flows do not starve other flows.  Using DSCP to classify traffic into traffic classes is fairly easy to do and can be done from the hosts before packets hit the network.  It is also important to implement the same queuing discipline at the hosts (on Linux using the ‘tc’ tool) as exists in the network to ensure the same behavior end-to-end from source computer to destination computer.  

One thing to watch out for is that on VoQ based switches with deep buffers the effective queue depth of an egress port servicing data from multiple ingress ports will, in the worst case, be the sum of the ingress queue depths, which may actually be too much.

Address bufferbloat:

Once elephants are inside their own properly scheduled queue, they have little affect on mice in another queue.  However elephants in the same queue begin to affect each other negatively.  The reason is that TCP by nature attempts to use as much bandwidth as the network will give it.  The way in which out-of-the-box TCP knows that it’s time to ease off of the accelerator is when packets start to drop.  The problem here is that in a network with buffers, these buffers have to get full before packets drop, leading to effectively a network with no buffers.  When multiple elephant flows are exhausting the same buffer pool in an attempt to find their bandwidth ceiling, the resulting performance is also less than the actual bandwidth available to them.

In the ideal world, buffers would not be exhausted for elephant flows to discover their bandwidth ceiling.  The good news is that newer AQM techniques like CoDel and PIE in combination with ECN-enabled TCP work together to maximize TCP performance without needlessly exhausting network buffers.  The bad news is that I don’t know of any switches that yet implement these bufferbloat management techniques.  This is an area where hardware vendors have room to improve.

Class-aware load balancing:

The idea behind class-aware load balancing across a leaf-spine fabric is to effectively create different transit rails for elephants and for mice.  In class-aware load balancing, priorities are assigned to traffic classes on different transit links such that traffic of a certain class will be forwarded only over the links that have the highest priority for that class with the ability to fall back to other links when necessary.  Using class-aware load balancing, more links can be prioritized for elephants during low mice windows and less during high mice windows.  Other interesting possibilities also exist.

Spread elephant traffic more evenly:

Even after separating traffic types into different queues, applying bufferbloat busting AQM, and class-aware load balancing, there is still the matter of hot and cold spots created by flow-based load-balancing of elephant flows.  In the ideal situation, every link in an ECMP link group would be evenly loaded.  This could be achieved easily with per-packet load balancing (or hashing on IP ID field), but given the varying size of packets, the resulting out-of-sequence packets can have a performance impact on the receiving computer.  There are a few ways to tackle these issues -- (1) Enable per-packet load-balancing only on the elephant classes.  Here we trade off receiver CPU for bandwidth efficiency, but only for receivers of elephant flows.  We can reduce the impact on the receiver by using jumbo frames.  Additionally since elephant flows are generally fewer than mice the CPU impact aggregated across all nodes is not that much.  (2) Use adaptive load-balancing on elephant class.  In adaptive load balancing, the router samples traffic on it’s interfaces and selectively places flows on links to even out load.  These generally consume FIB space, but since elephant flows are fewer than mice using some FIB space for improved load balancing of elephant flows is worth it.

Update: Another very promising way to spread elephant traffic more evenly across transit links is MPTCP (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02nBaaIoFWU).  MPTCP can be used to split an elephant connection across many subflows that are then hashed by routers and switches across multiple paths -- MPTCP then shifts traffic across subflows so as to achieve the best throughput.  This is done by moving data transmission from less performant subflows to subflows that are more performant.

Keeping costs down


The dense connectivity requirement created by the shift from vertically scaled computing and storage to horizontally scaled approaches has put a tremendous new cost pressure on the data center network.  The relative cost of the network in a scale-out data center is rising dramatically as the cost of compute and storage falls -- this is because the cost of network equipment is not falling in proportion.  This challenges network teams as they are left with the choice of building increasingly oversubscribed networks or dipping into the share that is intended for compute and storage.  Neither of these are acceptable.

The inability of OEMs to respond to this has supported the recent success of merchant silicon based switches.  The challenge with using merchant silicon based switches is the limited FIB scaling on these switches as compared to more expensive OEM switches.  OEM switches tend to have better FIB scaling and QoS capability, but at a higher cost point. 

Adopting switches with reduced FIB capacity can make some folks nervous.  Chances are, however, that some "little" changes in network design can make it possible to use these switches without sacrificing scalability.   One example of how to reduce the need for high FIB capacity in a stub fabric is to not send external routes into the fabric but only send in a default route.  The stub fabric would only need to carry specific routes for endpoint addresses inside the fabric.  Addressing the stub fabric from a single large prefix which is advertised out also reduces the FIB load on the transit fabric, which enables the use of commodity switches also in the transit fabric.  For multicast, using PIM bidir instead of PIM DM or SM/SSM will also significantly reduce the FIB requirements for multicast.  Using overlay network virtualization also results in a dramatic reduction in the need for large FIB tables when endpoint addresses need to be mobile within or beyond the stub fabric -- but make sure that your core switches can hash on overlay payload headers or you will lose ECMP hashing entropy.  [ Note: some UDP or STT-based overlay solutions manipulate the source port of the overlay header to improve hashing entropy on transit links. ]

Besides the cost of custom OEM switches, OEMs have also fattened their pocketbooks on bloated optical transceiver prices.  As network OEMs have been directing optics spend into their coffers, customers have been forced to spend even more money buying expensive switches with rich traffic management capabilities and tools in order to play whack-a-mole with congestion related problems in the data center network.  As customers have lost their faith in their incumbent network equipment vendors a market for commodity network equipment and optics has begun to evolve.  The prices of optics have fallen so sharply that, if you try hard enough, it is possible to get high quality 10GE transceivers for under $100 and 40GE for low hundreds as well.  Now it’s possible to populate the switch for much less than the cost of the switch whereas previously the cost of populating a switch with optics was multiples of the cost of the actual switch.  Furthermore, with the emergence of silicon photonics I believe we will also see switches with on-board 10GE single-mode optics by 2016.  With luck, we’ll see TX and RX over a single strand of single-mode fiber -- I believe this is what the market should be aiming for.

As the core network gets less expensive, costs may refuse to come down for some data center network operators as the costs shift to other parts of the network.  The licensing costs associated to software-based virtual network functions will be one of the main culprits.  In the case of network virtualization, one way to avoid the cost would be to leverage ToR-based overlays.  In some cases, ToR-based network virtualization comes at no additional costs.  If other network functions like routing, firewalling and load-balancing are still performed on physical devices (and you like it that way), then "passive mode" MVRP between hypervisor and ToR switch in combination with ToR-based overlay will enable high performance autonomic network virtualization.  The use of MVRP as a UNI to autonomically trigger VLAN creation and attachment between hypervisor switch and ToR switch is already a working model and available on Juniper QFabric and OpenStack (courtesy of Piston Cloud and a sponsor). [ Note: ToR-based network virtualization does not preclude the use of other hypervisor-based network functions such as firewalling and load-balancing ]

All said however, the biggest driver of cost are closed vertically integrated solutions that create lock-in and hold back operators from choice.  Open standards and open platforms give operators the freedom to choose network equipment by speed, latency, queuing, high availability, port density, and such properties without being locked in to a single vendor.  Lock-in leads to poor competition and ultimately to higher costs and slower innovation as we have already witnessed.

Wrapping up here, I’ve touched on some existing technologies and approaches, and some that aren’t yet available but are very needed to build a simple, robust and cost effective modern data center core network.  If you have your own thoughts on simple and elegant ways to build the datacenter network fabric of tomorrow please share in the comments.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

The real Slim Shady

Historically when an application team needed compute and storage resources they would kick off a workflow that pulled in several teams to design, procure and deploy the required infrastructure (compute, storage & network).  The whole process generally took a few months from request to delivery of the infrastructure.  

The reason for this onerous approach was really that application groups generally dictated their choice of compute technology.  Since most applications scaled vertically, the systems and storage scaled likewise.  When the application needed more horsepower, it was addressed with bigger more powerful computers and faster storage technology.  The hardware for the request was then staged followed by a less-than-optimal migration to the new hardware.  

The subtlety that gets lost regarding server virtualization is that a virtualization cluster is based on [near] identical hardware.  The first machines that were virtualized where the ones who’s computer and storage requirements could be met by the hardware that the cluster was based on.  These tended to be the applications that were not vertically scaled.  The business-critical vertically scaled applications continued to demand special treatment, driving the overall infrastructure deployment model used by the enterprise.

The data center of the past is littered with technology of varying kinds.  In such an environment technology idiosyncrasies change faster than the ability to automate them -- hence the need for operators at consoles with a library of manuals.  Yesterdays data center network was correspondingly built to cater to this technology consumption model.  A significant part of the cost of procuring and operating the infrastructure was on account of this diversity.  Obviously meaningful change would not be possible without addressing this fundamental problem.

Large web operators had to solve the issue of horizontal scale out several years ahead of the enterprise and essentially paved the way for the horizontal approach to application scaling.   HPC had been using the scale out model before web, but the platform technology was not consumable by the common enterprise.   As enterprises began to leverage web-driven technology as the platform for their applications they gained it’s side benefits, one of which is horizontal scale out.  

With the ability to scale horizontally it was now possible to break an application into smaller pieces that could run across smaller “commodity” compute hardware.  Along with this came the ability to build homogeneous easily scaled compute pools that could meet the growth needs of horizontally scaling applications simply by adding more nodes to the pool.  The infrastructure delivery model shifted from reactive application-driven custom dedicated infrastructure to a proactive capacity-driven infrastructure-pool model.  In the latter model, capacity is added to the pool when it runs low.  Applications are entitled to pool resources based on a “purchased” quota.

When homogeneity is driven into the infrastructure, it became possible to build out the physical infrastructure in groups of units.  Many companies are now consuming prefabricated racks with computers that are prewired to a top-of-rack switch, and even pre-fabricated containers.  When the prefabricated rack arrives, it is taken to it’s designated spot on the computer room floor and power and network uplinks are connected.  In some cases the rack brings itself online within minutes with the help of a provisioning station.

As applications transitioned to horizontal scaling models and physical infrastructure could be built out in large homogeneous pools some problems remained.  In a perfect world, applications would be inherently secure and be deployed to compute nodes based on availability of cpu and memory without the need for virtualization of any kind.  In this world, the network and server would be very simple.  The reality is, on the one side, that application dependencies on shared libraries do not allow them to co-exist with an application that needs a different version of those libraries.  This among other things forces the need for server virtualization.  On the other side, since today’s applications are not inherently secure, they depend on the network to create virtual sandboxes and enforce rules within and between these sandboxes.  Hence the need for network virtualization.

Although server and network virtualization have the spotlight, the real revolution in the data center is simple homogeneous easily scalable physical resource pools and applications that can use them to effectively.  Let's not lose sight of that.


[Improvements in platform software will secure applications and allow them co-exist on the same logical machine within logical containers, significantly reducing the need for virtualization technologies in many environments.  This is already happening.]

Sunday, October 13, 2013

The bumpy road to EVPN

In 2004 we were in the planning phase of building a new data center to replace one we had outgrown.   The challenge was to build a network that continued to cater to a diverse range of data center applications and yet deliver significantly improved value.

Each operational domain tends to have one or more optimization problem whose solution is less than optimal for another domain.  In an environment where compute and storage equipment come in varying shapes and capabilities and with varying power and cooling demands, the data center space optimization problem does not line up with the power distribution and cooling problem, the switch and storage utilization problem, or the need to minimize shared risk for an application, to name a few.

The reality of the time was that the application, backed by it's business counterparts, generally had the last word -- good or bad.  If an application group felt they needed a server that was as large as a commercial refrigerator and emitted enough heat to keep a small town warm, that's what they got, if they could produce the dollars for it.  Application software and hardware infrastructure as a whole was the bastard of a hundred independent self-proclaimed project managers and in the end someone else paid the piper.

When it came to moving applications into the new data center, the first ask of the network was to allow application servers to retain their IP address.  Eventually most applications moved away from a dependence on static IP addresses, but many continued to depend on middle boxes to manage all aspects of access control and security (among other things).  The growing need for security-related middle-boxes combined with their operational model and costs continued to put pressure on the data center network to provide complex bandaids.

A solid software infrastructure layer (aka PaaS) addresses most of the problems that firewalls, load-balancers and stretchy VLANs are used for, but this was unrealistic for most shops in 2005.  Stretchy VLANs were needed to make it easier on adjacent operational domains -- space, power, cooling, security, and a thousand storage and software idiosyncrasies.  And there was little alternative than to deliver stretchy VLANs using a fragile toolkit.  With much of structured cabling and chassis switches giving way to data center grade pizza box switches, STP was coming undone.  [Funnily the conversation about making better software infrastructure continues to be overshadowed by a continued conversation about stretchy VLANs.]

Around 2007 the network merchants who gave us spanning tree came around again pandering various flavors of TRILL and lossless Ethernet.  We ended up on this evolutionary dead end for mainly misguided reasons.  In my opinion, it was an unfortunate misstep that set the clock back on real progress.  I have much to say on this topic but I might go off the deep end if I start.

Prior to taking on the additional responsibility to develop our DC core networks, I was responsible for the development of our global WAN where we had had a great deal of success building scalable multi-service multi-tenant networks.  The toolkit to build amazingly scalable, interoperable multi-vendor multi-tenancy already existed -- it did not need to be reinvented.  So between 2005 and 2007 I sought out technology leaders from our primary network vendors, Juniper and Cisco, to see if they would be open to supporting an effort to create a routed Ethernet solution suitable for the data center based on the same framework as BGP/MPLS-based IPVPNs.  I made no progress.

It was around 2007 when Pradeep stopped in to share his vision for what became Juniper's QFabric.  I shared with him my own vision for the data center -- to make the DC network a more natural extension of the WAN and based on common toolkit.  Pradeep connected me to Quaizar Vohra and ultimately to Rahul Agrawal.  Rahul and I discussed the requirements for a routed Ethernet for the data center based on MP-BGP and out of these conversations MAC-VPN was born.  At about the same time Ali Sajassi at Cisco was exploring routed VPLS to address hard-to-solve problems with flood-and-learn VPLS, such as multi-active multi-homing.  With pressure from yours truly to make MAC-VPN a collaborative industry effort, Juniper reached out to Cisco in 2010 and the union of MAC-VPN and R-VPLS produced EVPN, a truly flexible and scalable foundation for Ethernet-based network virtualization for both data center and WAN.  EVPN evolved farther with the contributions from great folks at Alcatel, Nuage, Verizon, AT&T, Huawei and others.

EVPN and a few key enhancement drafts (such as draft-sd-l2vpn-evpn-overlaydraft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding, draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement) combine to form a powerful, open and simple solution for network virtualization in the data center.  With the support added for VXLAN, EVPN builds on the momentum of VXLAN.  IP-based transport tunnels solve a number of usability issues for data center operators including the ability to operate transparently over the top of a service provider network and optimizations such as multi-homing with "local bias" forwarding.  The other enhancement drafts describe how EVPN can be used to natively and efficiently support distributed inter-subnet routing and service chaining, etc.

In the context of SDN we speak of "network applications" that work on top of the controller to implement a network service.  EVPN is a distributed network application, that works on top of MP-BGP.  EVPN procedures are open and can be implemented by anyone with the benefit of interoperation with other compliant EVPN implementations (think federation).  EVPN can also co-exist synergistically with other MP-BGP based network applications such as IPVPN, NG-MVPN and others.  A few major vendors already have data center virtualization solutions that leverage EVPN.

I hope to produce a blog entry or so to describe the essential parts of EVPN that make it a powerful foundation for data center network virtualization.  Stay tuned.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Air as a service

Have you ever wondered about air?  We all share the same air.  We know it's vitally important to us.  If we safeguard it we all benefit and if we pollute it we all suffer.  But we don't want to have to think about it every time we take a breath.  That's the beauty of air.  Elegantly simple and always there for you.

Imagine air as a service (AaaS), one where you need to specify the volume of air, the quality of the air, etc before you could have some to breathe.  As much as some folk might be delighted in the possibility to capitalize on that, it would not be the right consumption model for such a fundamental resource.  If we had to spend time and resources worrying about the air we breathe we'd have less time and resources to do other things like make dinner.



Why does air as it is work so well for us?  I think it's for these reasons, (1) there is enough of it to go around and (2) reasonable people (the majority) take measures to ensure that the air supply is not jeopardized.

Network bandwidth and transport should be more like how we want air to be.  The user of network bandwidth and transport (citizen) should not have to think about these elemental services of the network other than to be a conscientious user of this shared resource.  The operator of the network (government) should ensure that the network is robust enough to meet these needs of network users.  Furthermore the operator should protect network users from improper and unfair usage without making the lives of all network users difficult, or expecting users to know the inner workings of the network in order to use it.

The past is littered with the carcasses of attempts by network vendors and operators to force network-level APIs and other complexity on the network user.  Remember the ATM NIC?  Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it's failures and fail to benefit from it's successes.

What the average network user wants is to get the elemental services of the network without effort, like breathing air.  So don't make it complicated for the network user -- just make sure there's enough bandwidth to go around and get those packets to where they need to go.


Monday, June 24, 2013

Regarding scale-out network virtualization in the enterprise data center

There's been quite a lot of discussion regarding the benefits of scale-out network virtualization.   In this blog I present some additional thoughts to ponder regarding the value of network virtualization in the enterprise DC.  As with any technology options, the question that enterprise network operators need to ask themselves regarding scale-out network virtualization is whether it is the right solution to the problems they need to address.

To know whether scale-out network virtualization in the enterprise DC is the answer to the problem, we need to understand the problem in a holistic sense.  Let's set aside our desire to recreate the networks of the past (vlans, subnets, etc, etc) in a new virtual space, and with an open mind ask ourselves some basic questions.

Clearly at a high level, enterprises wish to reduce costs and increase business agility.  To reduce costs it's pretty obvious that enterprises need to maximize asset utilization.   But what specific changes should enterprise IT bring about to maximize asset utilization and bring about safe business agility?  This question ought to be answered in the context of the full sum of changes to the IT model necessary to gain all the benefits of the scale-out cloud.

Should agility come in the form of PaaS or stop short at Iaas?  Should the individual machine matter?  Should a service be tightly coupled with an instance of a machine or rather should the service exist as data and application that is independent of a machine (physical or virtual)?

In a scale-out cloud, the platform [software] infrastructure directs the spin up and down of  application instances relative to demand.  The platform infrastructure also spins up application capacity when capacity is lost due to physical failures.  Furthermore, the platform software infrastructure ensures that services are only provided to authorized applications and users and secured as required by data policy.  VLANs, subnets and IP addresses don't matter to scale-out cloud applications.  Clearly network virtualization isn't a requirement for a well designed scale-out PaaS cloud.  (Multi-tenant IaaS clouds do have a very real need for scale-out network virtualization)***

So why does scale-out network virtualization matter to the "single-tenant" enterprise?  Here's two reasons why I believe enterprises might believe they need it, and two reasons why I think maybe they don't need it for those reasons.


Network virtualization for VM migration.


The problem in enterprises is that a dynamic platform layer such as I describe above isn't quite achievable yet because, unlike the Google's of the world, enterprises generally purchase most of their software from third parties and have legacy software that does not conform to any common platform controls.  Many of the applications that enterprises use maintain complex state in memory that if lost can be disruptive to critical business services.  Hence, the closest an enterprise can do these days to attain cloud status, is IaaS -- i.e. take your physical machines and turn them into virtual machines.  Given this dependence on third party applications, dynamic bursting and that sort of true cloudy capabilities aren't universally applicable in the back end of an enterprise DC.

The popularity of vmotion in the enterprise is testament to the current need to preserve the running state of applications.  VM migration is primarily used for two reasons -- (1) to improve overall performance by non-disruptively redistributing running VMs to even out loads and (2) to non-disruptively move virtual machines away from physical equipment that is scheduled for maintenance.  This is different from scale-out cloud applications where virtual machines would not be moved, but rather new service instances spun up and others spun down to address both cases.

We all know that for vmotion to work, the migrated VM needs to retain the same IP and MAC address of it's prior self.  Clearly if the VM migration were limited to only a subset of the available compute assets this will lead to underutilization and hence higher costs.  If a VM should be migrated to any available compute node (assuming again that retaining IP and MAC is a requirement), the requirement would appear to be scale-out network virtualization.


Network virtualization for maintaining traditional security constructs.


As I mentioned before, a scale-out PaaS cloud enforces application security beginning with a trusted registration process.  Some platforms require the registration of schemas that application are then forced to conform to when communicating with another application.  This isn't a practical option for consumers of off-the-shelf applications.  But clearly, not enforcing some measure of expected behavior between endpoints isn't a very safe bet either.

The classical approach to network security has been to create subnets and place firewalls at the top of them.  A driving reason for this design is that implementing security at the end-station wasn't considered very secure since an application vulnerability could allow malware on a compromised system to override local security.  This drove the need for security to be imposed at the nearest point in the network that was less likely to be compromised rather than at the end station.

When traditional firewall based security is coupled with traditional LANs, a virtual machine is limited to only the compute nodes that are physically connected to that LAN and so we end up with the underutilization of the available compute assets that are on other LANs.  However if rather than traditional LANs, we instead use scale-out LAN virtualization, then the firewall (physical or virtual) could be wherever the firewall is, and the VMs that the firewall secures can be on any compute node.  Nice.


So it seems we need scale-out network virtualization for vmotion and security...


Actually we don't -- not if we don't have a need for non-IP protocols.  Contrary to what some folks might believe, VM migration doesn't require that a VM remains in the same subnet -- it requires that a VM retains it's IP and MAC address which is easily done using host-specific routes (IPv4 /32 or IPv6 /128 routes).  Using host-specific routing a VM migration would require that the new hypervisor advertise the VM's host route (initially with a lower metric) and the original hypervisor withdraw it when the VM is suspended.

So now that we don't need a scale-out virtual LAN for vmotion, that leaves the matter of the firewall.  The ideal place to implement security is at the north and south perimeters of your network.  As I mentioned earlier security inside the host (the true south) can be defeated and hence the subnet firewall (the compromise).  But with the advent of the hypervisor, there is now a trusted security enforcement point at the edge.  We can now implement firewall security right at the vNIC of the VM (the "south" perimeter).  When coupled with perimeter security at the points where communication lines connect your DC to the outside world (the "north" perimeter), you don't need scale-out virtual LANs to support traditional subnet firewalls either.  It's debatable whether additional firewall security is required at intermediate points between these two secured perimeters -- my view is that they are not unless you have a low degree of confidence in your security operations.  There is a tradeoff to intermediate security which comes at the expense of reduced bandwidth efficiency, increased complexity and higher costs to name a few.

The use of host-specific routing combined with firewall security applied at the vNIC is evident in LAN virtualization solutions that support distributed integrated routing and bridging capability (aka IRB or distributed inter-subnet routing).  The only way to perform fully distributed shortest-path routing with free and flexible VM placement, is to use host-based routing.  The dilemma then is where to impose firewall security -- at the vNIC of course!!

Although we don't absolutely need network virtualization for either VM migration or to support traditional subnet firewalls, there is one really good problem that overlay based networking helps with, and that is scaling.  Merchant silicon and other lower priced switches don't support a lot of hardware forwarding entries.  This means that your core network fabric might not have enough room in it's hardware forwarding tables to support a very large number of VMs.  Overlays solve this issue by only requiring the core network fabric to support about as many forwarding entries as there are switches in the fabric (assuming one access subnet per leaf switch).  However even in this case per my reasoning in the prior three paragraphs, for a single-tenant enterprise the overlay network should only need to support a single tenant instance and hence would be used for dealing with the scaling limitations of hardware and not for network virtualization.  

Building a network-virtualization-free enterprise IaaS cloud.


There's probably a couple of ways to achieve vmotion and segmentation without network virtualization and with very little bridging.  Below is one way to do this using only IP.  The following approach does not leverage overlays and so each fabric can only support as many hosts as the size of the hardware switch L3 forwarding table.

(1) Build an IP-based core network fabric using switches that have adequate memory and compute power to process fabric-local host routes.  The switch L3 forwarding table size reflects the number of VMs you intend to support in a single instance of this fabric design.  Host routes should only be carried in BGP.  You can use the classic BGP-IGP design or for a BGP-only fabric you might consider draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc.  Assign the fabric a prefix that is large enough to provide addresses to all the VMs you expect your fabric to support.  This fabric prefix will be advertised out of and a default route advertised in to the fabric for inter-fabric and other external communication.
(2) Put a high performance virtual router in your hypervisor image that will get a network facing IP via DHCP and is scripted to automatically BGP peer with it's default gateway which will be the ToR switch.  The ToR switch should be configured to accept incoming BGP connections from any vrouter that is on it's local subnet.  The vrouter will advertise host routes of local VMs via BGP and for outbound forwarding will use it's default route to the ToR.
(3) To bring up a VM on a hypervisor, your CMS should create an unnumbered interface on the vrouter, attach the vNIC of the VM to it and create a host route to the VM which should be advertised via BGP.  The reverse should happen when the VM is removed.  This concludes the forwarding aspect of the design.
(4) This next step handles the firewall aspect of the design.  Use a bump-in-the-wire firewall like Juniper's vGW to perform targeted class-based security at the vNIC level.  If you prefer to apply ACLs on the VM facing port of the vrouter, then you should carve out prefixes for different roles from the fabric's assigned address space to make writing the ACLs a bit easier.

Newer hardware switches support 64K and higher L3 forwarding entries and also come with more than enough compute and memory to handle the task so it's reasonable to achieve upward of 32K VMs per fabric.  Further scaling is achieved by having multiple of these fabrics (each with their own dedicated maskable address block) interconnected via an inter-connect fabric, however VM migration should be limited to a single fabric.  But if you prefer to go with the overlay approach to achieve the greater scaling, replace BGP to the ToR with MP-BGP to two fabric route reflectors for VPNv4 route exchange.  When provisioning a VM-facing interface on the vrouter you'll need to place it into a VRF and import/export a route target.

I've left out some details for the network engineers among you to exercise your creativity (and avoid making this blog as long as my first one) -- why should Openstack hackers have all the fun? :)

Btw, native multicast should work just fine using this approach. Best of all, you can't be locked in to a single vendor.

If you believe you need scale-out overlay network virtualization consider using one that is based on an open standard such as IPVPN or E-VPN.  The latter does not require MPLS as some might believe and supports efficient inter-subnet routing via this draft which I believe will be accepted as a standard eventually.   Both support native multicast and both are or will be supported by at least three or more vendors eventually with full inter-operability.  I'm hopeful that my friends in the centralized camp will some day see the value of also using and contributing to open control-plane and management-plane standards.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Angry SDN hipsters.

Some folks seem to get a little too hung up on one philosophy or another -- too blind to see good in any other form except the notions that have evolved in their mind.  I'm hoping I'm not one of them.  I do have opinions, but which I believe are rational.

The counter culture of networking waves the SDN banner.  That acronym seems to belong to them.  They don't know what it stands for yet, but one thing they seem to be sure of is that nothing good can come by allowing networking innovations to evolve or even to exist in their birthplace.

The way I see evolving the network fabric is through improving on the best of the past.  Every profession I know from medicine, finance, law, mathematics, physics, you name it -- all of them are building their tomorrow on a mountain of past knowledge and experience.  So I'm sure my feeling the same about the network doesn't make me outdated, just maybe not a fashionable SDN hipster.




Some angry SDN hipsters say that the core network needs to be dumbed down.  They must have had a "bad childhood," technically speaking.  One too many Cisco 6500's stuffed with firewalls, load balancers and other things that didn't belong there.  Maybe even a few with a computer or two crammed into them.  I'm not sure I can feel sorry for you if that was your experience.  Maybe you didn't realize that was a bad idea until it was too late.  Maybe you were too naive and didn't know how to strike the right balance in your core network.  Whatever it was, I can assure you that your experience isn't universal, and neither is your opinions about how tomorrow should or shouldn't be.

Those who couldn't figure out how to manage complexity yesterday won't be able to figure it out tomorrow.  Tomorrow will come and soon become yesterday and they'll still be out there searching.  Endlessly.  Never realizing that the problem wasn't so much the network, it was them and the next big company that they put their trust in.

I had a great experience building great networks.  I stayed away from companies that didn't give me what I needed to get the job done right.  The network was a heck of a lot easier to manage than computers in my day, and the technology has kept pace in almost every aspect.  You see Amazon and Google aren't the only ones that can build great infrastructure.  And some of us don't need help from VMWare thank you.

So mister angry SDN hipster, do us all a favor and don't keep proposing to throw the baby out with the bath water.  We know your pain and see your vision too, but ours might not be so narrow.