Network function virtualization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:49, 16 July 2016

Revision as of 06:20, 22 August 2016

Line 51:

Thus, NFV is not dependent on SDN or SDN concepts. It is entirely possible to implement a virtualized network function (VNF) as a standalone entity using existing networking and orchestration paradigms. However, there are inherent benefits in leveraging SDN concepts to implement and manage an NFV infrastructure, particularly when looking at the management and orchestration of VNFs, and that's why multivendor platforms are being defined that incorporate SDN and NFV in concerted ecosystems.<ref>[http://www.cisco.com/go/esp Platform to Multivendor Virtual and Physical Infrastructure]</ref>

An NFV infrastructure needs a central orchestration and management system that takes operator requests associated with a VNF, translates them into the appropriate processing, storage and network configuration needed to bring the VNF into operation. Once in operation, the VNF potentially must be monitored for capacity and utilization, and adapted if necessary<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118900286.html|title=Software Defined Mobile Networks (SDMN): Beyond LTE Network Architecture.|last=Liyanage|first=Madhusanka|publisher=John Wiley|year=2015|isbn=978-1-118-90028-4.|___location=UK|pages=1-438|via=}}</ref>.

All these functions can be accomplished using SDN concepts and NFV could be considered one of the primary SDN use cases in service provider environments. It is also apparent that many SDN use-cases could incorporate concepts introduced in the NFV initiative. Examples include where the centralized controller is controlling a distributed forwarding function that could in fact be also visualized on existing processing or routing equipment.