Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vendors Combine To Standardize Virtual Networking With OpenDayLight

timothy posted about a year ago | from the it-is-the-case-that-camels dept.

Networking 17

alphadogg writes "Software-defined networking, a set of technologies to help networks better adapt to user needs with less manual effort, may at last be getting the common foundation it has needed for interoperability and efficient development. Most of the major vendors working on SDN have joined in on OpenDaylight, a project being announced this week that will develop an open-source SDN framework. The vendors, which include Cisco Systems, VMware, Juniper Networks and Ericsson, will contribute software and engineers to the effort, according to Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, which is hosting the project." A story at Slash DataCenter on the initiative gives some background, too, about the slippery concept of software defined networking.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yet Another Standard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43400537)

How about, everybody use an Intel 10Gbe virtual NIC and call it a day. Then every OS has a native driver and there's no need to deal with proprietary drivers and "tools".

You know, seamless virtualization. Transparent portability.

Re:Yet Another Standard. (1)

drakaan (688386) | about a year ago | (#43400669)

That'd be great. It's not what the article is talking about or what network virtualization is, is all...

Obligatory XKCD (2)

heezer7 (708308) | about a year ago | (#43400667)

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about a year ago | (#43400981)

Damn, got beat out...

Obligatory XKCD strip... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about a year ago | (#43400933)

Re:Obligatory XKCD strip... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43402505)

I'm so sick of that god forsaken strip, we'd live in a monoculture of technology without different standards and the whole point of that strip ("oh, let's try to make one standard to rule them all"... "oh look, we have competing standards") is actually the reason we need different standards, choice, because not every use-case fits into the same mould. Not every standard is made to be universal, not every standard's objective is to be completely universal. Having large companies group together to work together on one standard is trying to avoid the situation.

Re:Obligatory XKCD strip... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43403383)

use-case fits into the same mould.

Mold is the standard spelling. Screw your proprietary imperial spelling system.

Vendor Neutral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43401087)

From TFA: "networking industry will take the same approach to developing its next generation of technology as the big-data sector did with Hadoop or Web browsers with WebKit"

Yep gonna be universal vendor neutral standard just like webkit.

vendors combine to standardize (2)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#43401321)

something thats already had a standard open source implementation for quite some time now. why the linux foundation has agreed to participate in any of this is beyond me; the platinum level open-for-business vendors include assholes like:
Mircosoft, who after the open documents fiasco should be barred from open-anything just out of common-sense.
Cisco, remember VRRP and CARP? yep, that cisco.
Juniper, currently being investigated for stock backdating and being sued for misclassifying unix administrators as "lab trolls" to skirt hourly compensation. this does just fine: [] im sure OpenDayLight includes new features like lock in, collusion, price fixing, stonewalling, and empty promises.

Re:vendors combine to standardize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43401467)

Let us know when your computer or server or anything other than boxes from the vendors you deride can provide high-density, non-blocking multi-terabit per-platform Ethernet.

Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (1)

Argon (6783) | about a year ago | (#43401999)

Is not a strategy unique to Microsoft. Cisco proves that it can also play the game. Cisco is likely the biggest loser if SDN takes off in a big way. This is Cisco's way of making sure they're in the play with their proprietary extensions.

Re:Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (1)

Argon (6783) | about a year ago | (#43403231)

An article that expresses the same skepticism: []

Re:Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (1)

h8sg8s (559966) | about a year ago | (#43405667)

Cisco *invented* this particular game in the networking industry. How else could they charge premium prices for commodity gear running community standards all these years? They stand to loose their shirt.

Re:Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year ago | (#43472279)

Not exactly []

FFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43402301)

Ok, I went a step further that I should (because that should be editor's job) and searched "SDN Framework" and none of the first google results showed what the hell SDN stands for, so now I know it's not entirely my fault...

daylight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43409743)

finally they saw the Daylight!!!!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>