NFV and its sidekick SDN are getting a huge amount of attention and
I’ve been wondering how these fit into good old Frameworx Information
Model (SID).
There is a suggestion (http://blog.cimicorp.com/?p=2352) that NFV has been modelled as a Logical Resource at the bottom of the Resource stack by some NFV vendors and that surprised me and I'll explain why.
There is a suggestion (http://blog.cimicorp.com/?p=2352) that NFV has been modelled as a Logical Resource at the bottom of the Resource stack by some NFV vendors and that surprised me and I'll explain why.
If you look at the acronym’s components, the word Function is, I believe, the key to understanding how NFV and SID fit together.
Let’s consider a Network Function such as "Firewall" which is often used as an example of something that NFV can deliver without having to deploy a dedicated “box” or firewall device.
I wonder, is it the firewall device that has been virtualised or is it the function that the device offers that has been virtualised? In this case is it that there is a virtual firewall device in the cloud or is the cloud providing a firewall service?
Network Elements are in the network to perform functions, or in SID terms provide services...
So a physical (actually, compound) resource such as a Juniper box provides the service of “Firewall”.
SID (used to) models Resource Facing Services being provided by Logical Resources installed on Physical Resources.
So is NFV/NVF just RFS in another guise?
Should Resource Facing Service (a terrible name see my blog "The Problem with RFSs") be renamed to Resource Functional Service to highlight the connection between NFV and RFS?
This blog was originally published on LinkedIn on 13 Oct 2015.
It has been pointed out to me by John Reilly, no less, that in the latest release of the Frameworx Information Framework (SID) that RFS is being dropped and is only in the release for backward compatibility. RFS is being replaced by Config - perhaps I will comment on this in a future post.
Let’s consider a Network Function such as "Firewall" which is often used as an example of something that NFV can deliver without having to deploy a dedicated “box” or firewall device.
I wonder, is it the firewall device that has been virtualised or is it the function that the device offers that has been virtualised? In this case is it that there is a virtual firewall device in the cloud or is the cloud providing a firewall service?
Network Elements are in the network to perform functions, or in SID terms provide services...
So a physical (actually, compound) resource such as a Juniper box provides the service of “Firewall”.
SID (used to) models Resource Facing Services being provided by Logical Resources installed on Physical Resources.
So is NFV/NVF just RFS in another guise?
Should Resource Facing Service (a terrible name see my blog "The Problem with RFSs") be renamed to Resource Functional Service to highlight the connection between NFV and RFS?
This blog was originally published on LinkedIn on 13 Oct 2015.
It has been pointed out to me by John Reilly, no less, that in the latest release of the Frameworx Information Framework (SID) that RFS is being dropped and is only in the release for backward compatibility. RFS is being replaced by Config - perhaps I will comment on this in a future post.
2 comments:
It would be so interesting if you Andrew could write a bit about RFS replacement by Config.
Thanks Max - you've inspired me to write a new blog on the topic of Config and RFS - watch this space...
Post a Comment