Comments for A Network Virtualization Blog

Comment on What are the other networking vendors doing about virtualization? by Tom Ludwig

Tom Ludwig — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:04:54 +0000

Jennifer,

thanks for the encouragement. What could be more indicative of the situation than this: I ask the question what vendors other then Cisco are doing – and the only response comes from you at Cisco.

Comment on What are the other networking vendors doing about virtualization? by Jennifer Geisler

Jennifer Geisler — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:23:25 +0000

Hi Tom. I’m sure by now you’ve heard about our Unified Computing new architectural approach. Virtualization of the Data Center is a key component of our Unified Computing System. We believe virtualization has created a market transition…a unique opportunity to create a more agile and efficient architectural approach. As you so rightly pointed out, Cisco for the past several years has been focused on solving the challenges of virtualization in the Data Center. Our strategy is to bring transparency to virtualization. When data center resources are connected over an intelligent, unified network fabric, things that were previously invisible become visible. As Manager of Network Systems Networking for Cisco, I can tell you Cisco’s unique value is at the intersection of Policies, Management, Security, Process, Platform “islands” that still exist for virtual machines just as they did for physical machines, except now the level of scale has increased by another order of magnitude. At Cisco, we believe only the network can bring transparency and visibility across these data center “islands” to enable automation and dynamic provisioning across the data center infrastructure. I’m glad you’re keeping track of the latest developments in virtualization and look forward to your next post!

Comment on Minor confusion about the release date of Cisco’s Nexus 1000V virtual switch by Link Love - Blogs that linked to me this month | Colin McNamara - CCIE 18233 , RHCE, GCIH, CCVP, GEEK

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:02:09 +0000

[...] Tom Ludwig at http://networkvirtualization.wordpress.com pointed out quite accurately that I wasn’t explicit on the public release date for the 1000V. Thank you Tom for pointing that out – Minor confusion about the release date of Cisco’s Nexus 1000V [...]

Comment on IDC Virtualization Forum, Part II by Application Virtualization « Anindo Banerjea’s Blog

Application Virtualization « Anindo Banerjea’s Blog — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:03:11 +0000

[...] (renamed to XenApp after they acquired Xen, but nothing to do with Xen other than marketing). Here is an interesting blog entry from a [...]

Comment on Minor confusion about the release date of Cisco’s Nexus 1000V virtual switch by Tom Ludwig

Tom Ludwig — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:17:19 +0000

Colin,

obviously it’s not a big deal. It just so happened that I ran into two of your avid readers and it took us some time to resolve the point. I assume that your January estimate for the beta is based on some non-public information. It makes sense based on the fairly detailed documents that are available and the fact that there will be extensive testing necessary between the next version of VMware and the 1000V. I tend to stick with a far later date for my GA estimate …

/tom

Comment on Minor confusion about the release date of Cisco’s Nexus 1000V virtual switch by colinmcnamara

colinmcnamara — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:04:59 +0000

Sorry to annoy you with my title (and capitalization of the V). You are correct that the public availability of the 1000V is slated for the first half of CY09, however I fully expect to see it in beta environments by the end of January.

Thanks for the feedback,
–Colin

Comment on Minor confusion about the release date of Cisco’s Nexus 1000V virtual switch by Omar Sultan

Omar Sultan — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:26:46 +0000

Tom:

you are correct–the Nexus 1000V will not ship until 1H CY09, although your 6/30 prediction might be a wee bit pessimistic.

Omar Sultan
Cisco

Comment on It’s really hybrid virtualization security by Christofer Hoff

Christofer Hoff — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:55:55 +0000

Tom:

That’s a concise and valid summarization of my talk

Your take is exactly what I end up saying: (d) All of the above…with the extension to more and more interesting controls being integrated into the VMM’s to deal with virtualization security…

Further, check out the slides on IO Virtualization and the blog I just wrote about SR-IOV and direct attach hardware….ech.

Thanks for the ping.

/Hoff

Comment on No VMotion around virtual or physical firewalls, please by Tom Ludwig

Tom Ludwig — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:21:39 +0000

Chris,

it’s hilarious. I was just writing a post about your Check Point post from yesterday. No, I had not seen the small print about VMotion. And yes, I find it very interesting.

/tom

Comment on No VMotion around virtual or physical firewalls, please by Christofer Hoff

Christofer Hoff — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:58:09 +0000

Tom:

‘preciate the perspective.

Here’s an interesting anecdote to our conversation. If you look at the release notes for Check Point’s new VPN-1 VE (virtual edition,) even though they’ve made great strides with the solution in the areas of OVF support for installation, HA/LB, etc., the one line in the “known limitations” section of the release note you may be interested in is this:

VMotion is not supported.

We’re on the same page, it’s just that the ink’s not dry in my book yet

/Hoff