For me, "virtual" is a buzzword being used to sell me the idea that things are simple and easy to configure.

Many years ago, networking people achieved some virtualization by running VLANs in order to segregate traffic through their switches, saving money from having to build separate layer-2 infrastructures. Today, we are facing the challenge of deeper network virtualization: I have physical routers running several virtual routers with many virtual routing instances with hundreds of virtual switches, all combining to support thousands of virtual LANs. In the heart of these virtual networks, we have firewalls and other security devices all with their own virtual contexts and configuration.

Some challenges simply come from scale: show arp can return tens of thousands of rows, but you have to use just the right SNMP community to reach the right context to look at the routing table you want. Polling may not even complete in a "reasonable" time.

But other challenges come from complexity. How do I know that the subnet has been deployed properly with the right routing, firewall rules, and DHCP configuration? Why does it take several people to deploy a new subnet into a virtualized network? Why can’t one simply “vmotion” a subnet from building to another (in a different city) and have it just work?

What are your challenges as the whole infrastructure stack becomes more nebulous, complex, and virtual?

  • Virtualization has given us flexibility that wasn't possible when things were all physical; however, with that we have also received a significant increase in complexity.  With this additional scale and complexity it has become critical that we have the necessary tools in place to manage these environments.

    When I first started at our company everything was physical and we hosted all of our clients on just over a dozen physical servers.  I worked in the NOC at the time and we had a magnetic white board where all of the systems were listed.  When one of the engineers was going to work on a system they would come in and put a little red magnet next to the system so that we would know it was being worked on.  Fast forward to today and we have thousands of systems and no white board big enough to hold all of them and thus better tools are necessary.

  • This reminds me of Plato's discussion of The Cave. What we see are but shadows of the true thing. So the horse we see in the stable is an imperfect horse. There does exist in the universe one true horse. All the others are but imperfect shadows cast before our eyes.

    The other thought which comes to mind is that from the movie Erik The Viking (1989). A group of vikings go on a quest in which they encounter all the perils of their belief while they search for Valhalla. However, among the group is a Christian monk or priest, a missionary trying to convert them. He sees none of what they see, yet in a physical sense is transported along with them. When they finally reach the great hall, they can not enter, yet the priest walks right thru. The walls of the hall do not exist for him. So is it virtual? It exists for those inside the mythology, it has substance and consequence.

    To the program inside the OS of a virtual machine it is as real as anything can be, no?

  • I prefer Real Reality to Virtual Reality.

    I want to touch, feel, taste, smell, see and hear it.

  • I'm still not sure if we are living in the real world or is it just a virtual simulation.