Probably getting a little crosstalk between the subject of what are the services/products offered (whats desired and what those look like), versus how those are actually implemented (SDN versus existing protocols).

Agreed, SDN can be used to make implementing and managing services simpler and more flexible (as I said in this and last email).

But WRT complexity below I was questioning why would you want to make the IXPs service offerings more complex. i.e. why more features, more choices, more bandwidth control, QoS, bilateral VPNs, etc, as opposed to just bigger pipe when bigger pipes in NZ are cheap and easy. Unless of course you want to be more than an IXP.

On 1/9/2013 2:22 PM, Josh Bailey wrote:

I'm interested to hear more about what you mean by complexity?

I've heard of some large layer 2 networks. They are "simple" (aka
"familiar") but also have some operationally "complex" aspects.

For the sake of argument, what is more "complex" about directly
programming a forwarding element to do exacrtly what you want? Why is
that complexity?


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Kris Price <nznog@punk.co.nz

<mailto:nznog@punk.co.nz>> wrote:

� � VPLS is not hard, it's pretty simple, assuming you mean RFC4761 or
� � RFC4762. It's not necessarily cheap to get good kit for it though.

� � If you want a Layer 2 fabric that bilateral peering can take place
� � on without involvement of the IX, you could build yourself a public
� � L2 service using SDN.

� � You could also have your big scale out router running on the fabric,
� � and still do bilateral peering over Layer 2 E-Line services that are
� � set up, with the IX presenting an easy to use portal for configuring
� � these. I go to the portal and log in and say I want an E-Line to my
� � peer X, and X goes in also to say he accepts, and we're both given
� � an C-VID to tag our traffic to each other with. Anything I send to
� � my port on the IX with that CVID pops out his port with the CVID
� � he's given (potentially these are the same at both ends but doesn't
� � have to be that way). Then we get billed a little bit extra at the
� � end of each month. This is also achievable with SDN. Again it's just
� � analogues to existing services, but set up and managed in a
� � different, easier to automate way.

� � What's certainly true though is that the IX can make use of lots of
� � those commodity 64x10GE switches, each costing sub 10,000 USD, to
� � offer their customers pretty much infinite bandwidth (certainly in
� � NZs case, one of these would happily carry all NZ's traffic right?),
� � so why add complexity if it isn't needed and bandwidth at an IX can
� � be made so cheap? Maybe one reason to go down that path is if you
� � want the IX not to be just an *I* exchange but a general Ethernet
� � exchange, which certainly might have some merits.



� � On 1/8/2013 2:20 PM, Sam Russell wrote:

� � � � The hard part of VPLS/MPLS/multiple VRFs over MPLS is getting the
� � � � routers to all agree on their view of the world, and having
� � � � one-way LSPs
� � � � can complicate things further. If you have one controller that
� � � � pushes
� � � � out a single unified view of the world to every device, you make
� � � � it a
� � � � lot simpler, and therefore a lot harder to break things.

� � � � The current implementation (as I understand) pushes flows out
� � � � pre-emptively - the software RouteFlow syncs the RIB of a
� � � � running linux
� � � � VM to the flow table on the switch

� � _________________________________________________
� � NZNOG mailing list
� � NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz>
� � http://list.waikato.ac.nz/__mailman/listinfo/nznog
� � <http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog>

_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog