Comments on: Cisco UCS and Nexus 1000V design diagram with Palo adapter

By: Gabe

Gabe — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:59:12 +0000

Hi Brad,

Your posts are very informative! I would love to have some of your diagrams blown up and used on a wall at work. Do you make any of these available for such a purpose?

By: rhino

rhino — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:27:17 +0000

Maybe one difference is the vPath capability of the Nexus 1000v used for “Cisco Unified Network Servcies” ?

Thank you

Rhino

By: rhino

rhino — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:45:30 +0000

Hello Brad,

First of all, thank you for your web site.

I’m also trying to compare these two solutions.

With the solution #2, the Fabric Interconnect acts as the vDS. I’m ok with that. So what are the advantages to use the Nexus 1000v ? Do we have the same functionnalities between the Nexus 1000v and the “vDS” FI ?

Maybe if you can provide us with the advantages of each solution, it would help me to understand.

Rhino

By: Brad Hedlund

Brad Hedlund — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:35:12 +0000

Thanks Pablo. Nice site you have, by the way. I’ve added it to my RSS feeds

By: Pablo Carlier

Pablo Carlier — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:41:41 +0000

Thank you very very much for this fantastic summary Brad, I just used it with a customer to illustrate the benefits of MAC pinning and the ins and outs of Nexus 1000v forwarding. Linking it at my site right now!!

By: libing

libing — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:51:38 +0000

Thanks for the great information, but from the Cisco official introduction of VN-Tag(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/ns892/ns894/white_paper_c11-525307_ps9902_Products_White_Paper.html), the multi-channel NIV is deployed without Nexus1000v, and all the switching work will be done at the upstream switches, which is similar to a VEPA style.

So, which is the recommended deployment for VN-Tag? thanks!

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:08:00 +0000

If you have a multi-node ESX cluster, say 4-8 hosts, and you are using the 1000v on all hosts do you recommend hosting the two VSMs on that same cluster? This is assuming you properly configure the system VLANs. Or should you go the Nexus 1010 route, or configure a 2-node ESX cluster using a standard vSwitch that just hosts the VSMs which in turn manage the VEMs in the other cluster?

Basically, what’s the current advice on the chicken and the egg issue with VSMs and VEMs?

Lastly, if your recommendation is that the VSM/VEMs can be located on the same cluster, should all pNICs be assigned to the 1000v or should a couple critical VLANs (say the ESXi console and the VSM management interface) be on a standard vSwitch?

By: Brad Hedlund

Brad Hedlund — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:00:17 +0000

Matt,
Thanks for the nice feedback. Good luck with your projects and be sure to let me know if there are any gray areas needing clarification. I’m always thinking of new things to write about.

By: Matt Mc Auley

Matt Mc Auley — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:55:49 +0000

Brad you are a god!

I am just starting a number of deployment projects for a large integrator and your posts are making my life much easier!

By: Brad Hedlund

Brad Hedlund — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 02:49:59 +0000

Victor,
I think we’re talking about two different things here, hence the confusion.
When the VM connects to a hypervisor software switch (vSwitch, vDS, N1K), you are right, there is authoritative knowledge from vCenter of the VM’s MAC address which can be associated to a vEth port on the N1K. Cisco refers to this as “Software VN-Link”.

The other approach is to have the VM logically connected to a physical switch, bypassing the hypervisor for network I/O, and associated to a vEth port on the physical switch. This is the scenario I thought you were asking about. When you asked why a VM can’t be associated to a vEth port simply based on its MAC address, I listed the challenges with that (under the premise that the VM connects to a vEth on a physical switch). Cisco refers to this as “Hardware VN-Link”.

Does that clarify?

Cheers,
Brad