In Segment Routing the concept of source routing is present:

In computer networking, source routing, also called path addressing, allows a sender of a packet to partially or completely specify the route the packet takes through the network. In contrast, in conventional routing, routers in the network determine the path incrementally based on the packet’s destination


In prevalent IP networks per-hop lookup is performed based on the single primary destination address in the packet. Consider a situation where a stack of IP addresses is present per packet and needs to be processed by the intermediate routers. There would be a requirement from the hardware in the line cards. In this hypothetical situation how deep of a stack of addresses can be processed by the router chipsets and hardware ?

Similarly the SID Depth or the Maximum SID Depth is a parameter in segment routing enabled network devices. To route from a ingress to an egress the path selected by the source should be entirely capable of handling the number of SIDs ( MPLS Labels in SR MPLS) that are pushed onto the packet. Because the path selected by the source is in effect translated into a stack of labels (in SR MPLS) therefore the number of labels that the each device in the path can handle is an important design consideration.

Also, in Segment Routing MPLS the SID i.e. the labels are distributed via the IGP. So an end to end path label stack is supposed to be either in a single IGP area or if multiple routing areas or domains are required then some tricks are required to push and handle a label that is not distributed by the IGP. Lets see now: An external entity will need to program the ingress source node to push a stack of labels which includes a label not distributed by the IGP. This being the source there will be a resultant intermediate destination where at some point on some hop a label will be popped and the next label will be not have been learnt via the IGP.

In some way the burden of end-to-end connectivity over multiple hops is being shifted from the distributed IP routing control plane into a central label stack distribution authority.

I wonder if where we had IP Planning and IP configurations we will have label planning and label configurations.

Shifting a portion of the intelligence present on distributed nodes to a central authority.

Information is present in computing platforms in two forms.

– Bits that are stored
– Bits that are traveling and transitioning

Securing bits that are stored and bits that are traveling and transitioning is a task.

These two forms present their own challenges but the bits that are traveling and transitioning i.e. changing forms within the computing platforms have acquired special attention. This is due to the prevalent pervasive communications using information technology computing platforms within society and businesses. When bits transition and travel they are also stored and retrieved from storage so securing both is important.

The only mystery surrounding the field of security is the presence of the all so many interaction surfaces between hardware layers and software layers through which transitions and traveling of bits occurs. From seeing text on the screen with ones eyes to thinking and considering it to thereafter editing it via hands there exists industries working within the human body which occur without us contemplating over them. There are interaction surfaces with the body as well. With muscular, neural, skeletol, etc working together to name a few.

Within computing platforms as the bits transition back and forth within one component i.e. one isolated CPU, RAM, HardDisk, Operating System and Application Software they present their own security challenge. When instead of isolation the bits travel between 2 such computing systems they present a different set of challenges. When there exists industrial scale, constant, consistent, ongoing back and forth travel and transitioning within milliseconds over large geographies between hundreds and thousands of components of various types it presents a completely different set of challenges.

Interaction surfaces are where bits change hands between subsystems. For example bits changing hands between the operating system and an application running on it or bits changing hands between one PC and another PC over a network. Interaction surface is when one subsystems surface interacts with another subsystems surface within the larger system and bits run. As the field of information technology and computing has evolved and progressed the number and types of subsystems, their surfaces and their interactions has increased a lot. So much so that securing them has become complicated. Wholesome security is therefore achieved when every time bits change hands i.e. transition and travel the interaction is secure. It is secure in the form that the storage at each end of change of hands is secure and the medium of exchange is secure.

Now it is simple to state in general english that when one subsystem interacts with another subsystem and bits change hands the storage points at each end and the medium used for the interaction and travel should be secure. Given timescale and geographical scale when it comes to reality the shear number and types of subsystems, the number and types of storage locations and the number and types of exchange mediums is so large that encompassing all of them becomes difficult.

Another incision into the security domain is cut deep into the system when the human computer interaction surface appears at various locations and in various forms. This increases the complexity of the whole security domain. Bit to Human interaction surface also needs to be kept secure at each interaction, at each geographical location and every time.

Furthermore another aspect is when one secure system under the ownership of one entity interacts with another system owned by another entity. This is therefore a time when bits are changing hands amongst different owners of them. The time and location of such an interaction surface presented between two separate ownerships also increases complexity. As your bits are stored under the ownership of another entity and accessed and retrieved by other people a whole system of management is required for such inter-ownership bit storage and bit travel interaction surfaces.

I guess a chart showing the whole variety of interaction surfaces within computing would demystify security. The reason for this is that each entry in the chart i.e. each interaction surface would be simply mapped to the precaution and action required for securing it. Each type of interaction surface would require a security precaution and actionable item within the security framework.

Be it an interaction surface where bits are:
– stored in hardware
– being processed by one set of software
– within one computer
– on a server
– in an application
– traveling over a network
– interacting with humans
– being exchanged between different humans
– being exchanged between different entities

This is a copy of a previous Linkedin Post Dated June 7 2016 which was not present on this Blog.

OPNFV Brahmaputra is a Lab ready release of OPNFV. One statement is that community driven Systems Integration really is a hard task to accomplish. This becomes especially true if the systems being integrated to form a larger system are actually multiple large open source projects themselves.

To start with OPNFV aims to integrate systems upon which VNFs can be run.

The caption above is heavy. On the one side there is the requirements generating standards bodies block of organizations which produce specifications and define how the system is to run. On the other side there are the code producing development projects which produce open source projects. OPNFV stands in the middle and intends to integrate these individual code projects according to the requirements laid out by the standard bodied and provide a system on top of which VNFs can be run and tested. The reason this task is being run under an umbrella membership based organization such as OPNFV is because it is a repetitive task which every organization will need to do over and over again as soon as new releases of codes are made available for the individual projects.

It might be difficult to picture this to start with but imagine you want to have a lab ready to run and test VNFs. What is the lab composed of? It will have Infrastructure on top of which VNFs can be run. What is this Infrastructure composed of? This Infrastructure will be composed of hardware and a virtualisation layer and hypervisors and networking projects such as OpenDaylight and Openstack and KVM and Ceph all running together to provide a block of Infrastructure virtual compute network and storage (An NFVI Point of Presence) on which VNFs can be run.

Every organization which wants to reach the level of testing VNFs will need such a lab. And then what happens when a new version of OpenDaylight is released or a new version of Openstack is released or KVM or Ceph? Everybody needs to update their labs. OPNFV is a Linux Foundation project which intends to be the focal point of these activities and perform them jointly instead of everybody doing them individually.

It also helps make the system work. A patch to OpenDaylight could work well within OpenDaylight but could break things at System layer when integrating with the rest of the components which make an NFV lab (to be used to runs VNFs). OPNFV aims to be the first systems layer at which point such patches can be spotlighted and returned to the project they came from informing them that at the system levels things get disjointed.

OPNFV according to its initial white paper aims to make this systems testing environment in line with the NFV Architecture References points of Vi-Ha, Vn-Nf, Nf-Vi, Vi-VNFM & Or-Vi.

After the above is clear the figure below can be understood to be a larger system composed of individual projects integrated together with the aim of running VNFs. In the figure below OpenDaylight is one piece (in network), KVM is another piece (in compute), Openvswitch is another piece and Openstack is also one piece. All these when put together provide the infrastructure to run VNFs. Also to be noted is that in the case of OPNFV there are community labs (Pharos Labs) which provide the hardware.

The presence of this combined effort also means that for Network Operators the differentiation in the market is in Service Orchestration. The Virtual Network Functions and the Network Services run on top of them.



This is a copy of a previous Linkedin Post Dated June 7 2016 which was not present on this Blog.

ETSI showcased a practical implementation of NFV at the Mobile World Congress 2016. They showed the whole NFV Architecture being implemented and run to provide a SIP voice call. An end to end communication service of a SIP call was made based on a vIMS platform. This vIMS is an NFV VNF orchestrated by a NFV Orchestrator run on top of Infrastructure controlled by an Openstack based VIM. Let’s see the components and how they made the NFV based SIP voice call.

There are two NFVI PoPs (Points of Presence) or two VIMs. One is Openstack controlled and the other is controlled by openvim (part of OpenMano package). Both are controlled by the Open Mano NFVO for resource orchestration. The Service Orchestration is performed by Ubuntu’s Juju.  The launchpad of is used as triggering mechanism for resource orchestration and service orchestration. 6wind provides the PEs showcasing corporate VPN interconnectivity. Telefonica provides the traffic generator to test the bandwidth capacity of the PE links and Metaswitch provides the VNF vIMS Clearwater for being run atop the infrastructure.

The figure below shows details:

A multi-site corporation’s network is shown to be running connected via 3 PEs. One site which is connecting to PE 3 has the VNF deployed in VIM2 which is another Data Center. One NFVI PoP labelled VIM 1 is hosting the 6wind PEs while the second NFVI labelled VIM 2 is hosting the VNF. There is interDC communications going on between the two NFVI PoPs. The figure below shows the SIP voice calls communication logical path. The IMS protocols SIP signaling is implemented in VIM 2 in the Metaswitch Clearwater vIMS.

More details can be seen here.

ETSI’s new initiative is delivering an open source NFV Management and Orchestration software stack which is set take away attention from the MANO and turn it into a given piece of software. This puts more focus on the VNFs. The message could be that Service Orchestration using VNFs are therefore to be the focus of attention for Telco organizations.


This is a copy of a previous Linkedin Post Dated June 7 2016 which was not present on this Blog.

In telecom networks the option to place an LTE vEPC stands out as an exemplary demonstration of NFV’s application. The figure below gives the generic NFV Architecture. It be divided into 3 main sections:

  1. The Management and Orchestration
    1. Consists of NFV Orchestrator, VNF Manager and Virtualization Infrastructure Manager.
  2. The NFVI – NFV Infrastructure
    1. Consists of Hardware, Virtualization Layer and Compute, Storage, Network Virtualization Software
  3. The VNFs – i.e. the virtual network functions.

The type of function the VNF provides shows what this NFV network delivers. That is if the NFV network delivers as a Network Service an LTE Core end to end communication then there will be EPC functionality implemented and provided by the VNF part of the NFV network.

See the figure below from an ETSI Proof of Concept work.

It shows the vendor CYAN providing NFV Orchestrator (NFVO) and VNF Manager (VNFM). Redhat and Openstack provide the Virtualized Infrastructure Manager (VIM). The figure also shows the relevant Infrastructure hardware and hypervisor software solutions. Finally it shows the VNFs as being Connectem’s vEPC. If the VNF was implementing a different functionality say it was a vIMS then the rest of the components in the figure could be the same and the end to end Network Service being provided by the NFV network would be different. Therefore the function implemented inside the VNF defines what service the NFV network provides. Therefore the work done by the VNF decides whether your NFV network is Telco or Enterprise; LTE or WiMAX; LTE or 3G etc.

For a list of possible Telco VNF’s see the figure below.

Every chuck of functional blocks could be implemented together as a VNF. So what Connectem is doing is implementing the LTE MME, SGW, PGW, HSS, PCRF functionality and packaging it as a VNF which can be run atop virtualized infrastructure. In the ETSI Proof of Concept, Connectems solution therefore does this according the NFV specifications so that the VNF can be managed by a VNFM and its infrastructure is composed so as it can be managed by a VIM and all this can be controlled and coordinated by an NFVO i.e. NFV Orchestrator. Therefore you get an LTE EPC functionality inside the virtualized NFV environment.

The ETSI definition of a VNF is that a VNF is “a Network Function capable of running on NFV Infrastructure (NFVI) and being orchestrated by a NFV Orchestrator (NFVO) and VNF Manager”.

Coming back to our vEPC example the VNF has components. These VNF Components (VNFCs) can logically be pictured as below:

ETSI mandates that a vendor can choose to implement components as they wish inside the VNF environment as long as they speak to the other NFV architecture components as per their defined VNF interfaces. This means that the different components can utilize efficient compute storage and networking procedures instead of the standards body defined communication methodology. An example is that inside the vEPC software the MME will communicate with the SGW but will utilize efficient computational methodology instead of the 3GPP defined interfaces. If for some reason (say a lab environment) a vendor chooses to implement the 3GPP interfaces inside their vEPC it won’t be as fast and as efficient but it can be used to showcase 3GPP communications inside NFV.

Good VNFCs software design is what will distinguish different providers of vEPC software solutions.


This is a copy of a previous Linkedin Post Dated May 16 2016 which was not present on this Blog.

MANO is the brain of the NFV Network. It is the part of the network through which control operations are performed on virtual network functions and virtual network functions infrastructure.

One set of v-eNB, vMME, vSGW, vPGW, vPCRF can be assumed to be a Network Service. Each of the above v’s provide distinct Network Functions which with the v’s are deployed as Virtual Network Functions on Virtual Network Functions Infrastructure. The Virtual Network Functions Infrastructure is hardware with the virtual abstraction layer providing virtualization. These are the acronyms.

Multiple virtual network functions are connected together, or chained together, to provide a network service. The physical links are in the infrastructure which is the compute/storage hardware equipment while the logical links are among the VNFs. The endpoint is the Network Service endpoint which is providing service to the end devices.  Between the physical links and the logical links sits the virtualization layer.

The NFVO i.e. the NFV Orchestrator is the part of the network which controls the deployment and operations of virtual network functions.

This is a copy of a previous Linkedin Post Dated May 24 2016 which was not present on this Blog.

NFV is simple. It’s most simplistic distinction is that it is the Telecom Operators name for hardware independence and software dependence. Hardware is locked in while software is more easily changed (a project manager would say: relative to hardware that is).

We can try to see what problem NFV seeks to solve.

Telecom operators faced a dilemma about hardware. “To launch a new network service often requires yet another variety (of hardware) and finding the space and power to accommodate these boxes is becoming increasingly difficult; compounded by the increasing costs of energy, capital investment challenges and the rarity of skills necessary to design, integrate and operate increasingly complex hardware-based appliances.”

The sentence starts with “to launch a new network service often requires yet another variety” (of hardware). Remember they want to compete with the Whatsapp’s and Viber’s of tomorrow and need agility of deployment.

NFV seeks to provide that ‘Agility of Deployment’ of new network services to Network Operators by taking away dependency on proprietary and vendor locked in hardware. That is the high level purpose.

The rest is architecture. Hardware can be any compute(r) node with associated storage (types) and an accompanied (inter)network of such devices.  Then it follows to make virtual services; Virtual Network Functions with Virtual Network Infrastructure.

To roll out software or new software for a new service is easier than to roll out hardware.

Another primary benefit is elasticity in energy consumption. Energy consumption according to demand. With more control of hardware, which is the energy consuming physical device, via dependence on software this is made possible.