How to install Open vSwitch on RedHat Fedora
SDN expert Brent Salisbury started a series of posts dedicated to integration on his personal blog by looking at installing Open vSwitch on Red Hat Fedora 20. Salisbury included screenshots of the installation, as well as extra notes on general Fedora configuration tasks. Salisbury added that he and his team are continuing to work on network virtualization in OpenDaylight while integrating further into OpenStack.
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
Salisbury’s full post includes the step-by-step breakdown of installing Open vSwitch on RedHat Fedora 20.
Cisco rebuts VMware NSX comparison to ACI
A recent NetworkWorld article featuring VMware exec Steve Mullaney's thoughts on NSX and Cisco ACI prompted a rebuttal on Cisco's company blog. In the original post on NetworkWorld, Mullaney not only outlined VMware's vision for SDN, but also took a stab at other SDN strategies -- in particular, Cisco ACI. Mullaney first began by extensively describing NSX in detail. When asked about Cisco's ACI approach, he told NetworkWorld that the ACI requirement of rip-and-replace hardware "ain't going to go over well," among other things.
Cisco refuted Mullaney's comments in a blog post with a series of comeback points. For starters, Cisco claimed VMware's pricing model is fundamentally flawed, doubling the cost of networking while providing lower functionality. In addition, Cisco claimed its ACI platform is out-performing NSX in terms of openness, and that NSX hasn't built out any proven or scalable deployments. Lastly, Cisco hit home by outlining how the NSX abstraction model is "doomed to reduce visibility" and requires separate management of two structures. Cisco said the approach has adverse impacts on L4-7 services.
Take a look at Cisco's full post, which outlines specific issues with VMware's NSX platform.
SDN: Revolutionary or evolutionary?
Nicolas "Neela" Jacques, executive director for the OpenDaylight Project, took to the OpenDaylight blog to discuss whether or not SDN is revolutionary or evolutionary. He cited a blog post by Steve Wexler from IT-TNA, which explores the same question. Wexler's post touched on an issue that had been bugging Jacques for the past few years – chief technology officers and network administrators are turning toward SDN to help with network management, but most are still struggling to make SDN a reality.
Jacques explained why, writing that SDN has been highly disruptive, and that most platforms require the purchase of new equipment or the deployment of overlays. However, the market is desperately looking for evolutionary SDN that fits their needs. Users aren't likely to find such a thing in the foreseeable future, and they won't be able to standardize one component, protocol or vendor. As a result, the industry needs open platforms that provide abstraction layers. He concluded by writing that the path to SDN is most certainly an evolutionary one, as networking continues to -- and needs to -- evolve.
Jacques breaks down his full argument as to why SDN is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
VMware shells out more cash for VDI than SDN
On his Ethereal Mind blog, Greg Ferro wrote a short post looking at VMware's decision to spend more on its recent acquisition of AirWatch for its VDI capabilities than it did on its purchase of Nicira and its SDN components in 2012. Ferro wrote that both of the acquired companies were in different stages of maturity when VMware stepped in, and that Nicira's acquisition was more about talent and patent acquisition. However, Ferro found it interesting that VMware is spending about the same on an MDM as it did on an entire SDN strategy and entry into the market. He concluded that it's a reminder as to how networking has a service foundation, but it's not all that valuable in terms of delivering revenue.
Check out Ferro’s musings on VMware's cost decision regarding AirWatch and its VDI capabilities.