SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I came across an article a few hours ago, http://www.networkworld.com/article/3121969/lan-wan/virtualizing-wan-capabilities.html
I was wondering how much of all that makes sense. It seems to put a lot of focus on the virtual buzz that exists today everywhere and it seems to be being pushed in networking as well. While I don't mind this being implemented by those who want to, I am a bit of a fanboy of the saying "Hardware is King". All this "IT as a service" doesn't seem to have much sense unless one defines what IT is. It may range from just a shared printer, to an entire rack full of servers and switches, to an entire floor full of them. Virtualised WANs and the notion of a 'WAN as a service' could be easy as a breeze to be managed, but how robust could they be? While performance needs at the network level always go up, how does this relate to virtualizing that in itself, transforming it into yet another layer down the stack? A layer which encapsulates all the other layers and which in turn may contain such a layer too. How deep would the nesting level go?
From the article:
"In the network, NFV [Network Functions Virtualization] allows routers, switches, firewalls, load balancers, content delivery systems, end-user devices, IMS [IP Multimedia Subsystem] Nodes, and almost any other network function to be run as software on virtual machines—ultimately, on shared servers, using shared storage," Honnachari explained in an executive brief.
Basically it is the promise of being able to draw a network in a CAD-like software, and push a "Run" button.
Then there is also:
In a world where every part of business is moving, ever faster, the new WAN era will be characterized by user-intuitive solutions that help businesses sense and adapt to shifting demands, allowing those businesses to achieve competitive advantage by helping them optimize their business in motion.
What could be these shifting demands to change your mind often about the WAN infrastructure on which many other things depend on? The virtual network of the International Stock Exchange traffic, anyone?
Like someone else mentioned, would any Soylentils enjoy playing "The Sims: NOC Edition"?
Previously:
Software-Defined Networking is Dangerously Sniffable [
AT&T Open Sources SDN 8.5 Million Lines of Code - to be Managed by Linux Foundation [updated]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:04AM
I know this lady that use to provision the POS systems world wide for a popular brand of yuppy fastfood.
The had it all computerized. A check list a mile long, automated where possible. Customized for every country, every state every town.
E months before opening order equipment
L weeks order the lines
D days ship it
D' Days send the technitians.
Over time it changed from dialup, to leased line, then to internet drops. The backend was always TCP/IP so the physicak layers did't matter, A wide variety of carriers and providers were used initially, slowly consolidating to just a few,
When she was about to retire, the whole thing got contracted to AT&T. Its all virtual now. Especially as far as the resturant is concerned.
Packets is packets. If you want to manage the hardware, fight with every modem, plan every drop, be my guest.
I'll take virtual anyday. I'll use SSL/TLS. But beyond that I don't care how the contractore get it from Italy to the West Coast.
If they want to configure the routing by draging icons around a screen, that's fine. I still drop packets on a wire,
Its pretty much all handled by the edge providers these days anyway.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by FunkyLich on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:01PM
What makes you so certain that the packets will get delivered from the several-layer-virtualised distributed-potentially-across-continents os-and-application system with the same efficiency and speed as directly onto hardware? Do you think maintenance of virtual WAN (which I don't equate with mere creating VMs in OpenStack and connecting it with some virtual router in the same OpenStack to ultimately be delivered on the same physical port. However complicated an OpenStack farm made of hundreds or even thousands of nodes may seem, it would be still very simple to any serious WAN infrastructure) would be simpler than maintenance of hardware and its configurations as they currently are?
You use SSL/TLS and that's till where you care about. But beyond this very same point, is where I start to care about, while I don't really care what lies before it. I already fight with modems and plan every drop, just so you will be able to just use SSL/TLS. What I am concerned about is that all this will add several layers where things can go wrong. Certainly we could solve all this with this somebody-elses-problem you seem to suggest and instead of 10 people we employ one hundred, with at most equal performance of the network as far you'd be concerned and would perceive. But I doubt you'd like an eight-fold increase in your bill for these extra 90 people dealing with a kind of distributed magic box.