Fabric Arch Compet

DATA CENTER FABRIC ARCHITECTURE
COMPETITIVE DIFFERENTIATORS

SUTAPA BANSAL
Product Marketing Manager, FSG

Juniper Confidential

In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out because they
succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment.
Charles Darwin

INCUMBENT
Dunkleosteus Fish
Marlin
Ruled the World
Fast, Agile
SLOW, Armored
Replaced
FISH – Did Not
Prehistoric
Adapt
NEW RULER!
NOW EXTINCT!
FAST MARLIN

2 Copyright © 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net


AGENDA

1 Challenges With Data Centers

2 Juniper’s Fabric Architecture

3 Competitive Cisco Fabric Path
Fabric Path Architecture
TRILL Protocol

4 Competitive Brocade VCS Architecture

5 Summary


TRENDS IN THE DATA CENTER

Application
Data Center Virtualization
Architecture
Consolidation
Evolution



CHANGING ROLES OF THE NETWORK
Traditional role – connecting users
• North-South traffic
Latency Tolerant

New role – connecting devices
• East-West traffic
• Ideally one hop away Latency Sensitive

Newest role – foundation of the cloud
• Any-to-any connectivity

Application running


CHALLENGES IN DATA CENTERS

1 Scale to support DC consolidation

2 High Performance Networking

3 Better user experience:
Faster NW with low latency / lower oversubscription / large bandwidth

4 Virtualization support

5 High reliability

6 Manage complexity, and reduce cost of networking



DEFINING THE IDEAL NETWORK – A FABRIC

Flat, any-to-any Single device
connectivity N=1

Attributes Network Fabric
Data Plane
• Low latency and jitter Flat
Any-to-any
• Lossless
• Non L2 and L3 support Control Plane
Single device
Shared state

A Network Fabric
has the….

Performance and Simplicity And Scalability and Resiliency
of a single switch the of a network


AGENDA



TRILL Protocol


5 Summary


DATA PLANE IN A SINGLE SWITCH

Data Plane
1. All ports are directly connected
to every other port
2. A single “full lookup” processes
packets



CONTROL PLANE IN A SINGLE SWITCH

Control Plane

Single consciousness

Centralized shared table(s) have
information about all ports

Management Plane
All the ports are managed from a
single point



THE QFABRIC DATA PLANE
Data Plane So, we separate the fabric
from the i/o ports
And replace the copper
traces with fiber links
For redundancy add
multiple devices



THE QFABRIC DATA PLANE
Data Plane 1. All ports are
directly connected
to every other port
2. A single “full
lookup” at the
ingress edge
Interconnect device

Edge

The distributed data plane is implemented on the interconnect and edge devices


SCALING THE CONTROL PLANE
Control Plane Director

The intelligence and
state is federated,
distributed across
the fabric

New Host
Address
A federated control plane provides both scalability and resiliency


SCALING THE MANAGEMENT PLANE
Management Plane Director

Single point of
management
Extensive use of
automation

Managed as a single switch - N=1


QFABRIC HARDWARE

Interconnect
Connects all the edge devices
Cannot function as a standalone device

Edge node
Media independent I/O ToR device.
Can be run in independent or fabric mode

Director
2 RU high fixed configuration
X86 based system architecture



QFABRIC VALUE PROPOSITION
Low latency
High – <1Us in rack
Performance – <5Us across fabric – max cable length
Flat Fabric Low jitter

Large Seamless layer 2 and layer 3 with scale
Scale

Full Non-blocking and lossless
Wirespeed

Storage FCoE gateway and transit switch
Convergence

Green Lower power, HVAC, space
Solution



COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
1H2011 Timeframe Estimate
Cisco (N7K+N5K) Brocade
QFabric
FabricPath VDX
4 Chassis 24 Chassis 24 Chassis1
Configuration
125 ToRs 171 ToRs 136 ToRs

Layer 3 Support Yes No No2

Networking Racks (#) 2 24 24

Power/Port 14W 37W 54W

Device to Manage 1 191 160

Latency (Inter-rack) <5u >35u >93u

Oversubscription 3:1 3:1 3:1

17 1Needs L3 core to scale for 6K ports Copyright © 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net
2L3 supported only in spine/core devices

AGENDA



TRILL Protocol


5 Summary


JUNIPER QFABRIC VS. CISCO FABRICPATH
3 COMPETITIVE AREAS

Hardware
Architecture Protocols
Components



CISCO FABRICPATH ARCHITECTURE – FUTURE
Cisco’s architecture is based on L2MP, Cisco called FabricPath, and the IETF standard is TRILL.
Cisco FabricPath works at Layer 2, and need to extend the IS-IS protocol as its control protocol.

DC Core
Nexus 7000
WAN
10GbE Core
IP+MPLS WAN
Agg Router

FabricPath

DC Access

Gigabit Ethernet
10 Gigabit Ethernet
10 Gigabit DCE
4Gb Fibre Channel
10 Gigabit FCoE/DCE
Nexus 5548 and Nexus 2000



CISCO FABRICPATH ARCHITECTURE
REALITY FOR 6000 PORT CONFIG

FabricPath:

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 12

…. …. …. …. ….
1 19 20 38 39 57 58 76 77 95 96 112

Chassis: 4 vs 20
Access devs: 84 vs 112 Managed Devices:
Links: 336 vs 4288 N = 1 vs 132

21 Note: Copyright © 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net
- OS* Over Subscription 3:1
- Ports: 4000 server ports Juniper Confidential

QFABRIC RESILIENCY
CONTROL PLANE ISOLATED FROM DATA PLANE

Control Plane
Juniper Interconnect Director

Redundant
out-of-band
connections

MAC spoofing

Unknown
traffic X

Server

QFX 3500
Faster Re-convergence
Dedicated control plane

Out of band control plane – data plane flooded but control
22 plane is not blocked
Copyright © 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net


FABRICPATH CONTROL PLANE PRONE TO ATTACKS:
SHARED WITH DATA PATH

Control Plane

Same path used to propagate
control plane changes as
data plane; prone to attacks,
less resilient

Control Plane
Propagation Over Same
Data Plane

Unknown Destination
Traffic Flood

X

Nexus 5548
Control plane impacted due to data plane flood


QFABRIC: HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW-LATENCY

Data Plane

<1Us

<5Us
<5Us
Stock <1Us
update <5Us

231.1.1.1
Server Storage Storage Back-End Server Server Server Server
Application Servers

QFABRIC: Predictable, consistent performance; every path < 5Us


FABRICPATH: INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE, HIGH
LATENCY
Data Plane

Different latency
depending upon
path; latency
across Fabric
<35Us

Nexus 5548 14Us 35Us
Stock
update

Storage Back-End Server Server Back-End
231.1.1.1 Server Application Servers Application Servers

FabricPath: Unpredictable, inconsistent performance;
QFabric is half the latency of a single Nexus7000


QFABRIC: SCALED MANAGEMENT PLANE
Management Plane
Admin
Director
Single point of
management
Extensive use of
automation

Managed as a single switch – N=1


FABRICPATH COMPLEX AND COSTLY MANAGEMENT:
1000 PORT VIEW
M M
Management Plane

Each device managed Admin
separately
Multiple touch
complex management M M M M

OPEX: During image
upgrade, provisioning,
Maintenance

6*10G links

M M M M M M M

Nexus 5548

Each Device Managed as an Individual Switch


3 COMPETITIVE AREAS

Hardware
Components



FABRICPATH TRILL: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
TRILL is a new IETF protocol to No Multipathing With STP
perform Layer2 bridging
based on Layer3 IS-IS link
state routing technology B1

B3 B2
X
Eliminates STP and increase Link
B4
Blocked
bandwidth utilization (active-N
links) and Fabric efficiency by
allowing equal bisectional traffic
Trill Allows Multipath
Minimal configuration burden
on user
RB1
Layer2 only technology and
RB3 RB2
does not address Layer3
RB4
TRILL supposed to help inter-
op but questionable


ARE TRILL IMPLEMENTATIONS INTER-OPERABLE?
Next Hop Destination Address (NHDA)
Outer Destination Address (ODA)
NHDA NHSA
ODA OSA
Next Hop Source Address (NHSA)
Outer Source Address (OSA)
Different frame
Ethertype = CTAG Next_Hop.VLAN
Ethertype = DTAG FTAG (10b) TTL (6b)
formats, = TRILL
Ethertype V,R,M,OpL,Hop_Count
Inner Destination Address (IDA) proprietary
Egress Nickname Ingress Nickname
IDA ISA extensions Inner Destination Address (IDA)
– No
Inner Source Address (ISA)
interoperability
IDA ISA

Inner Source Address (ISA)
Rest of Original Frame

Rest of Original Frame

FCS

FCS
Fabric Path TRILL

TRILL implementation based on FSPF

TRILL implementation based on IS-IS



DATA CENTER DESIGN L3 OR L2?

Address Space Domain Size
L3 Fault
L3 Hierarchical
Containment vs.
vs. L2 Flat
L2 Flexibility L3 Needed for:
Need Both Capacity planning,
L3 & L2 traffic engineering,
VLANs anywhere
Learning Complexity and G/W routing
L3 Control Plane vs. L3 Convergence vs.
L2 Data Plane L2 Plug and Play

TRILL is L2 only
Needs external (or internal) router to connect L2 domains


QFABRIC VS FABRICPATH

QFabric is Layer 2 and Layer 3
1 4
QFabric

1 ... ... ... 84

FabricPath is only Layer 2

FabricPath:

1 2 3 4 5 6

12
1

1
….
19 20 38
…. 39
….
57 58
….
76 77
….
95 96 112

- OS* Over Subscription 3:1
- Ports: 4000 server ports Juniper Confidential

ECONOMICS OF TRILL BASED DATACENTERS
Cisco Strategy

Initial Pitch Real Deployment
• L2-only Traffic • L3 or Multicast or FCoE or QCN
• Position Fcard • Mcard Required
• 32x10GE • 8x10GE
• $35K ($1K/10GE) • $70K ($9K/10GE)

Cost Cost

Simple Rich Core
Core Up-Sell (FP & L3
Cards)
Lock-in
Scale Simple Edge Simple Edge Scale



QFABRIC EFFICIENT MULTI-PATHING
BY LOAD BALANCING

Efficient Director
Bandwidth
utilization with
spraying across
unequal links

28%
25% 28%
25% 28%
25% 28%
25%

14%

X

Multi-Pathing Dynamic


FABRICPATH TRILL: NOT EFFICIENT LOAD
BALANCING FOR MULTI-PATHING

In-proffeciant bandwidth
utilization

NX7K

33%X
0% 25% 25%
33%
25% 25%
33% 33%

4 8 12 16 28
Nexus 5548

FP uses TRILL based on ECMP: Only equal cost paths are chosen


KEY ISSUES WITH FABRICPATH IMPLEMENTATION

Poor Performance (high latency, high jitter)

Complex Network Management

Low Reliability and Control over Network

Limited or No L3
(Layer 3 as a Service Limits FabricPath Scale Costly Solution)

Limited Virtualization Support: Small 16K MAC Table,
Small Port Density at Full L2/L3

Low on Uplink Bandwidth: Oversubscription



3 COMPETITIVE AREAS

Hardware
Components



Cisco Nexus Fabric building blocks..

F: L2, FSS
M: L3, no FSS Nexus 5548 at Access (ToR)

Nexus 7K in Core

Line cards in this architecture are either capable of L2 (with FSS) or L3 (without
FSS) processing
+ Eliminates STP, allows multi-pathing
+ Scales to many core chassis at L2
- No layer 3 : Does matter whether traffic is within or across VLANs


Closer look at Nexus7k with F & M cards
For Parity: Lossless, 3:1, Oversubscription and Line-rate L3

From N5k
• Backplane bandwidth of
F (230GE) F card is 230G
– Only 23*10 GE ports are
line rate per F card
• L3 traffic needs to go via M
card which is limited to
80Gbps per card
M (80GE)
Every F Card will need 3xMcards to
support line rate L3 traffic

F(230G) So, a N7K 16 slot chassis will have:
To N5k
• 4 * F cards
• 12 * M cards
• i.e., 23 * 4 = 92 line-rate ToR
facing ports



QFABRIC VS. FABRICPATH – 6000 PORTS
QFabric
QFabric
1/3 fewer
Non-Blocking 1 4
devices
L2 & L3
2/3 less power
1 125 $300k/year

TRILL like - “Big Pile” Architecture 90% less floor
space
L3 7-10x faster

90% fewer links
L2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mgd. Devices
1 16
1 vs 193
1 vs 25 admins

1 21
.. ..
42
..
63 84
.. ..
105
..
126
..
147 167

• OS* Over Subscription 3:1
• Ports: 6000 server ports

QFABRIC VS. FABRICPATH NUM DEVICES REQUIRED:
CAPEX AND COMPLEXITY

250 Juniper QFabric
$$

200

150

100 Servers

50 Cisco FabricPath
$$

0
500p 1000p 3000p 6000p

# of Devices JNPR # of Devices CSCO

Servers



QFABRIC VS. CISCO NEXUS ENVIRONMENTAL
FRIENDLINESS
QFabric Environmental Labels Cisco Nexus Environmental
Labels

5/6

China RoHS SR-3580 NEBS Level 3
6/6
• Verizon NEBS
compliance

Recycled Material



QFABRIC VS. CISCO NEXUS, ENERGY UTILIZATION
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Max Power Nominal Power
Qfabric Cisco 5548, NX7018 L2 Cisco 5548, NX7018 L3
Source for Cisco Power comparison
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9670/data_sheet_c78-618603.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/hw/nexus7000/installation/guide/n7k_sys_specs.html


QFABRIC VS CISCO NEXUS TAKE AWAYS
Performance
7x lower Latency (Juniper Qfabric <5Us
vs. Nexus 35Usec )
Highest scale (6000 ports )with complete
Layer 2 and layer 3
Invisible IT
Management Complexity: Minimal. QFabric has
operational simplicity of single switch
High resiliency: no single point of failure
Operational savings :
1/20th operators/administrators vs Fabricpath
Most eco-friendly fabric
1/3 power/port at 1/10 footprint of FabricPath


AGENDA



TRILL Protocol


5 Summary


BROCADE VIRTUAL CLUSTER SWITCH SOLUTION

VDX 6720-24
VDX 6720 -60
No Scale : VCS fabric has only upto 10 switches
Low port utilization: VDX 6720-60 has 60 ports but Ethernet Fabric connections
take 12 ports (out of 50) on each switch.

Minimal Virtualization support : 32k total MAC table insufficient for large scale
Data center solution.

Lack of basic layer3,QOS features Multicast group supporting is very limited,
only 256.

Manageability complexity VCS solution relies on each individual switches
managed independently


BROCADE VCS SOLUTION :
BRCD REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE

Core layer:
MLX with MCT
BROCADE CLAIM:
6 links per trunk
(24 total)
VCS fabric has up
6:1 subscription 10-switch VCS fabric;
to 10 switches
ratio in VCS fabric 312 usable ports
Scale: 600 ports
vLAG

Latency: 600ns *

Up to 36 servers
per rack
4 racks per VCS

Servers With 1/10G and 10G DCB FCoE/iSCSI
DCB Connectivity Storage



QFABRIC VS. BROCADE VDX VCS SCALE
BASED ON: BROCADE VDX IN ACCESS, AGGREATION (VCS ) WITH 450 PORTS
BROCADE REALITY:
BigIron
BigIron 1. Max 450 ports or only
Rx-16
Rx-16 315 ports server ports

2. Latency >1200ns within
switch
Based on:
Max # TOR: 7, Aggregation devices:
3, Max MCT MLX: 2

VDX 6720-60

VDX 6720-60
7

MAX VCS SCALE: 450 Server Ports Only`


QFABRIC VS BROCADE VCS
SCALE, SIMPLICITY AND MANAGEABILITY
Max scale 350
7000 Manageabilty at 450 ports
300 290
6000

250
5000

200
4000

150
3000

100
2000

50 40
1000
2 1
-
0 # of Admins # of
JNPR BRCD Links,Interactions
BRCD JNPR



QFABRIC VS BROCADE VCS PERFORAMNCE
18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

-
Latency (usec)

BRCD JNPR

Based
50 on : BROCADE vdx IN ACCESS,AGGGREATION( vcs ) WITH 450 PORTS
Copyright © 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net


Brocade VCS implementation KNOCKOFSS

1 Brocade solution does not scale – limited to 600 ports

2 No Storage Convergence : No FCoE-FC Gateway

No Layer 3 – VCS does not achieve a single-layer DC
3
POOR PERFORMANCE: HIGH LATENCY ACROSS
FABRIC 15Us*
4
Brocade implementation is based on FSPF:non-standard
TRILL; it cannot interoperate with other vendors TRILL-
5 based implementation

Brocade VCS is a NOT a single flat “Fabric” technology;
similar to Juniper’s Virtual Chassis technology, only 3
6 years later

*Assuming BigIron as Core switch because of lack of VCS core switch


QFABRIC VS BROCADE VCS TAKE AWAYS
Performance
Highest scale (6000 ports vs 450
ports )with complete Layer 2 and
layer 3
3x lower Latency (Juniper Qfabric
<5Us vs. BROCADE VCS )
Invisible IT
Management Complexity: Minimal.
QFabric has operational simplicity of
single switch
resiliency: no single point of failure
Operational savings vs Brocade: ½
administrators ,1/7th cables neede
using QFabric vs VCS


AGENDA



TRILL Protocol


5 Summary


JNPR VS CSCO DETAIL COMPARISON
…FOR MULTIPLE PORT COUNTS
Category #Ports >> 500p 1000p 3000p 6000p
Performance
Latency (usec) CSCO 34 34 34 34
JNPR 5 5 5 5
Simplicity
# of Devices CSCO 18 32 98 195
JNPR 15 25 67 129
# of Admins CSCO 2 2 5 9
JNPR 1 1 1 1
# of Cables CSCO 240 482 1,812 3,612
JNPR 44 84 252 500
Operational Expenses
Power & Cooling Cost ($/yr) CSCO $ 61,834 $ 73,409 $ 245,355 $ 489,884
JNPR $ 33,717 $ 39,971 $ 66,237 $ 105,010
Adminstrative Costs ($/yr) CSCO $ 340,000 $ 460,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,800,000
JNPR $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Maintenance Cost ($/yr) CSCO $ 41,798 $ 73,396 $ 225,288 $ 448,319
JNPR Need PLM Input
Capital Expenditure
Equipment Costs CSCO $ 2,888,792 $ 3,953,584 $ 12,992,752 $ 25,950,876
JNPR Need PLM Input
Green
CO2 Emissions (lbs) CSCO 359,760 427,105 1,427,522 2,850,233
JNPR 196,174 232,559 385,378 610,969


Fabric Arch Compet

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Fabric Arch Compet

Ähnlich wie Fabric Arch Compet (20)

Fabric Arch Compet