Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Open Source Virtualization Linux IT News

Linux Foundation Announces Major Network Functions Virtualization Project 40

Andy Updegrove writes: The Linux Foundation this morning announced the latest addition to its family of major hosted open source initiatives: the Open Platform for NFV Project (OPNFV). Its mission is to develop and maintain a carrier-grade, integrated, open source reference platform for the telecom industry. Importantly, the thirty-eight founding members include not only cloud and service infrastructure vendors, but telecom service providers, developers and end users as well. The announcement of OPNFV highlights three of the most significant trends in IT: virtualization (the NFV part of the name refers to network function virtualization), moving software and services to the cloud, and collaboratively developing complex open source platforms in order to accelerate deployment of new business models while enabling interoperability across a wide range of products and services. The project is also significant for reflecting a growing recognition that open source projects need to incorporate open standards planning into their work programs from the beginning, rather than as an afterthought.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Foundation Announces Major Network Functions Virtualization Project

Comments Filter:
  • by Art3x ( 973401 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @03:37PM (#48029781)

    collaboratively developing complex open source platforms in order to accelerate deployment of new business models while enabling interoperability across a wide range of products and services

    Bingo!

    • collaboratively developing complex open source platforms in order to accelerate deployment of new business models while enabling interoperability across a wide range of products and services

      Bingo!

      I was thinking the same thing. They basically came up with a "great" reason for a whole new standard. To hell with the old standard! Whoever invented that was obviously dumb!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by brakarific ( 1974740 )
        I happen to work as a field engineer for one of the bigger companies that is funding this project. I work pretty closely with our product management and software development group. There are massive network virtualization projects going on now with a couple of Tier 1 Carriers and Hosting companies. There are probably more projects that I'm unaware of. The Carriers and Hosting Companies aren't looking for new standards, they are just tired of buying a $20k - $150k router that can only ever be a router.
    • Let's try a sanity reword and measure how much they added unnecessary(caveat: I'm prone to being overly verbose as well, and I won't do a great job)

      We make open source middleware

      Did I get it right?

      • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <`delirium-slashdot' `at' `hackish.org'> on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @03:57PM (#48029955)

        * complex open source middleware

        * for the cloud

        • That's the part before what the OP quoted. And all software is complex, or at least complex enough to have bugs.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          I follow this area from decently close, although I'mnot a contributor. A less-buzzwordy explanation is that the project is adapting current virtualization and middleware infrastructure to let telecom workloads (network elements) run in VMs. Broadly this means developing ways to reduce packet processing overheads, more efficient virtual switching, and controlling latency much more tightly than current mainstream solutions.

          • I follow this area from decently close, although I'mnot a contributor. A less-buzzwordy explanation is that the project is adapting current virtualization and middleware infrastructure to let telecom workloads (network elements) run in VMs. Broadly this means developing ways to reduce packet processing overheads, more efficient virtual switching, and controlling latency much more tightly than current mainstream solutions.

            Maybe you can answer this then: What is a "Telecom workload" except perhaps a domestic spying node? Isn't the point of being a Telecom to just move the fucking packets? Why are we virtualizing that when at present, big dedicated routers are needed to do it properly? Are they seriously saying they want to get an even bigger machine, put a bunch of software in the middle that might increase reliability (but most likely just create a new, unknown single point of failure), and call it "improved"? Or, are t

            • by Anonymous Coward

              I can answer that. A Telecom workload is one of the 12 systems in between two people talking on their cellphones. You're calling from the Sprint Network using an iPhone, you call a friend using Tmo and an old Motorola Cliq. A whole bunch of systems get involved when you press send and they have to:

              Check whether his number was ported out of area-code, and find out who owns it.
              Convert your i-voice codec to an appropriate standard for exchange with that carrier
              Tmo has to look him up to find his last regist

            • No, the point of being a telecom company is to connect your customers together, move their data where they want it efficiently, and get them to pay you for it. Telecom workloads not only include digging ditches for your access line and running wavelength division multiplexors across them, they also include things like routing IPv4/IPv6, firewalls, load balancing, intrusion detection, preventing and mitigating DDOS, hosting CDNs, routing lots of private networks that all run RFC1918 addresses and maybe VLAN

              • Sorry but this is never gonna work for real IP moving workloads unless the hardware evolves to support fast switching as efficiently as a Juni MX or a Cisco CRS. I agree it applies to core support nodes involved in signalling (HSS/HLR/MSC/CSCF etc) but that's something we can potentially do today, not something that requires a whole project to rework the standards to achieve. The problem today is that most of the vendors won't sell you the software without the hardware anyway. Probably what's going to happe
          • by qpqp ( 1969898 )
            So, an open software-defined networking (aka SDN) solution?
            • by skids ( 119237 )

              No this is more reasonable than SDN. SDN pretends to be a road to virtualizing the capabilities of actual grunt-work networking equipment, without being arsed to actually be able to enumerate said capabilities and thus is doomed to never fully succeed. This, however, is for the higher level intelligence well suited to virtualization -- basically the stuff thateats all your RSPs' CPU.

              • by qpqp ( 1969898 )
                Should we call this SDN 2.0 then?

                'cause

                carrier-grade, integrated, open source reference platform [...] to advance the evolution of NFV and ensure consistency, performance and interoperability among multiple open source components

                Just doesn't sound as catchy.

  • by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @03:54PM (#48029915) Homepage Journal

    The telecoms contributors will play dirty. I promise you.

    • the strength of linux is the people who maintain it and keep it secure. i doubt if we will continue our support if linux becomes mainly a tool for capitalist profits.

      the free software community came to be because tech heads cdn't get the tools they needed on small machines using proprietary OS. this is the core of FS strength. f*ck with that and we will go away.
    • by Xipher ( 868293 )

      The telecoms are looking for cheaper implementations for shit they already have to deploy. They want to piggy back on everyone else's work, so they don't have to spend so much money.

  • Translation: VM's are cheap and flexible, but have horrible packet latency
    Solution: don't use a VM

    Move along, nothing to see here, yawn.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Would be just fantastic, but for the love of god please don't let poettering anywhere near this

With your bare hands?!?

Working...