Comments on: How Google is using OpenFlow to lower its network costs

By: Dave Mackey

Dave Mackey — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:25:52 +0000

Stacey – Thanks for the excellent article. I think this clears up my understanding of the value proposition of OpenFlow significantly…
If I understand correctly, we are separating the physical hardware and the intelligence layers. This means that the physical network devices can be fairly inexpensive due to lacking the built-in intelligence most high-end switches currently provide – this is replaced by high intelligence at the central controller…

By: Gino Villarini

Gino Villarini — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:11:56 +0000

Check Nicira and Big Switch Networks

By: Keith Townsend

Keith Townsend — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:01:21 +0000

Good points. I know in the Enterprise most network teams I’ve worked involved with have had a difficult time understanding the entire network as a system. This is why I believe it’s difficult for Application and Server Operations personnel to understand problems unique to the network. MPLS solves a specific set of problems but as you stated when you move up the stack doesn’t do as much for you. I can see your point at why content creators would be specifically interested.
Like any new technology I think you will have to worry on vendor lock in if you are an early adopter. Once standards are accepted I think this will put pressure on network vendors to innovate at the device level.
This is my first introduction to OpenFlow technology. This post was a good introduction to the concept but I’ll make sure to follow the link and see what types of problems Google is trying to solve.

By: q

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:38:30 +0000

@Keith Townsend Monday, April 9 2012

Dear Keith, MPLS with MP-BGP is successfully solving a “Single system” issue for ALL ISPs today. MPLS Stack in network equipment is already a commodity. What MPLS/MP-BGP Can’t fix (yet) is L7 logic inflow into network forwarding decision process. BUT if OpenFlow will, it will create a new market and in NO WAY shall it commoditize network equipment, because new devices with new logic will have to be created, they can only work if deployed in an e2e solution, this will make the TCO enormously big and bring the danger of vendor lock-in. So this whole story won’t fly for big operators, mostly for Content Providers who need to manage their application traffic.

thank you

By: q

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:30:22 +0000

OMG! “running alternative protocols like MPLS or BGP”
RTFM ASAP!

By: Brent Salisbury

Brent Salisbury — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:25:13 +0000

So refreshing to see the consumers drive the networking space. Pushing networking vendors to take some risk is great for the industry. Decoupling the Network OS and abstracting up the stack may be revolutionary.

By: Keith Townsend

Keith Townsend — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:35:29 +0000

I shouldn’t post while I’m sleepy but you get the meaning.

By: Keith Townsend

Keith Townsend — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:25:37 +0000

Thanks. I’m going to have to follow this more closely. Networks are extremely complex (thus expensive) as they made of autonomous routers and switches that attempt to create a single system via these long in the tooth routing protocols. If OpenFlow is successful of creating a single intelligent system that’s controlled by a set of controllers Google is right that this will revolutionize networking.

In theory this will continue the put to commodity of network devices making them basically dumb devices with ports connected to a virtualized controller.

Almost makes me want to dust off my networking books :)