Showing posts with label API. Show all posts
Showing posts with label API. Show all posts

July 28, 2017

Protecting your border or offering a service to others?

The value of automation in the DataCenter

Everyone is aware of the value of the automation.
Many companies and individual engineers implemented various ways to save time, from shell scripts to complex programs and to fully automated IaaS solutions.

It helps reducing the so called "Shadow IT", a phenomenon that happens when developers can't get a fast enough response from the IT of the company and rush to the public cloud to get what they need. Doing that they complete and release their project soon, but sometimes troubles start with the production phase of the deployment (unexpected additional budget for the IT, new technologies that they are not ready to manage, etc.).


shadow IT happens when corporate IT is not fast enough
shadow IT happens when corporate IT is not fast enough

For sure, some departments are organized in silos (a team responsible for servers, one for storage, one for networking, one for virtual machines, of course one for security...) and the provisioning of even simple requests takes too long.


process inefficiency due to silos and wait time
process inefficiency due to silos and wait time


Pressure on the infrastructure managers

So there is inefficiency in the company, that affects the business outcome of every project.
Longer time to market for strategic initiatives, higher costs for infrastructure and people.
Finger pointing starts, to identify who is responsible for the bottleneck.

The efficiency of teams and individuals is questioned, and responsibility is cascaded through the organization from project managers to developers, to the server team, to the storage team and generally the network is at the end of the chain... so that they have no one else to blame.

Those on the top (they consider themselves on top of the value chain) believe - or try to demonstrate - that their work is slowed down by the inefficiency of the teams they depend on. They try to suggest solutions like: "you said that your infrastructure is programmable, now give me your API and I will create everything I need on demand".

Of course this approach could bring some value (not much, as we'll see in the rest of the post) but it mines the relevance of the specialists teams that are supposed to manage the infrastructure according to best practices, to apply architectural blueprints that have been optimized for the company's specific business, to know the technology in deeper detail.
So they can't accept to be bypassed by a bunch of developers that want to corrupt the system playing with precious assets with their dirty hands.



The definitive question is: who owns the automation?
Should it be left to people that know what they need (e.g. Developers)?
Should it be owned by people that know how technology works, and at the end of the day are responsible for the SLA including performances, security and reliability that could be affected by a configuration made by others (i.e. IT Administrators)?


In my opinion, and based on the experience shared with many customers, the second answer is the correct one.
By definition the developer is not an expert on security: if he can easily program a switch via its REST API to get a network segment, it’s not the same when traffic needs to be secured and inspected.


The IT admin patrols the infrastructure
The IT Admin patrolling the infrastructure


Offering a self service catalog (or API)

A first, immediate solution could be the introduction of an easy automation tool like Cisco UCS Director, that manages almost every element in a multi vendor Data Center infrastructure: from servers to networks to storage to virtualization in a single dashboard. But what is more interesting is that every atomic action you do in the GUI is also reflected in a task in the automation library, that allows you to create custom workflows lining all the tasks for a process that you want to automate.
A common example of automation workflow is the creation of a 4-hypervisors server farm.
A single workflow starts from the SAN storage creating a volume and 4 LUN, where the hypervisor will be installed to enable remote boot for the servers. Then a network is created (or the existing management network will be used) and 4 Service Profiles (the definition of a server in Cisco UCS) are created from a template, with individual ip address, mac address and wwn for each network interface. Then, zoning and masking are executed to map every new server to a specific LUN and the service profiles are associated to 4 available servers (either blades or rack mount servers). The hypervisors are installed using the PXE boot, writing the bytes in the remote storage, configured and customized, and finally added to a (new) cluster in the hypervisor manager (e.g. vCenter).

All this process takes less then one hour: you could launch it and go to lunch, when you're back you'll find the cluster up and running. Compare it to a manual provisioning of the same server farm, eventually performed by a number of different teams (see the picture above): it would take days, sometimes weeks. 
Other use cases are simpler: maybe just creating a 3 tier application with VM and dedicated networks.

Once the automation workflow has been built and validated, it can be used by the IT admin or by the Operations everyday, to save time and ensure consistent outcome (no manual errors). But it can also be offered as a service to all the departments that depend on the IT for their projects. 

You can build a service catalog with enterprise features: multitenancy, role based access control, reporting, chargeback, approvals, etc. But you can also offer (secured) access to the API to launch the workflow, offering a degree of autonomy to your consumers. Eventually, using a resource quota: you don’t want everyone to be able to create dozens of VMs every hour if the capacity of the system can't sustain it. 

They will appreciate the efficiency improvement, for sure.


What's in it for me?


If you allow your internal clients to self serve, you will: 

  • get less requests for trivial tasks, that consume time and give no satisfaction (let them play with it),
  • be the hero of the productivity increase (no requests pending in your queue)
  • dedicate your time and skill to designing the architectural blueprint that will be offered as a service to your clients (so that everybody plays according to your rules)
  • use policy based provisioning, so that you define the rules just once and map them to tenants and environments: every deployment will inherit them
  • maintain control on resource consumption and system capacity, hence on costs and budget
  • increase your relevance: they will come to you to discuss their needs, propose new services, collaborate in governance

Example: network provisioning


The discussion above is valid for the entire infrastructure in the Data Center.
Now I tell you the story of a customer that implemented it specifically for the networking.

They were influenced by the trend about SDN and initially they were caught in the marketing trap "SDN means software implemented networking, hence overlay". Then they realized the advantage provided by ACI and selected it as the SDN platform ("software defined networking", thanks to the software controller and the ACI policy model).

Developers and the Architecture department asked to access the API exposed to self provision what they needed for new projects, but this was seen as an invasion of the property (see the picture with the dirty hands).

It would have worked, but it implied a transfer of knowledge and delegation of responsibility on a critical asset. At the end of the day, if developers and software designers had knowledge in networking, specialists would not exist.

So the network admins built a number of workflows in UCS Director, using the hundreds of tasks offered by the automation library, to implement some use cases ranging from basic tasks (allow this VM to be reached from the DMZ) to more complex scenarios (create a new environment for a multi tier application including load balancer and firewall configuration, plus access from the monitoring tools, with a single request).


3 tier application blueprint
Blueprint designed in collaboration with Security and Software Architects



Graphical editor for the workflows, with the tasks library
Graphical Editor for the workflow


These workflows are offered in a web portal (a service catalog is offered by UCSD out of the box) and through the REST API exposed by UCSD. Sample calls were provided to consumers as python clients, powershell clients and Postman collections, so that the higher level orchestration tool maintained by the Architecture dept was able to invoke the workflows immediately, inserting them in the business process automation that was already in place.


Example of python client running a UCSD workflow
Example of python client running a UCSD workflow



All the executions of the workflows - launched through the self service catalog or through the REST API - are tracked in the system and the administrator can inspect the requests and their outcome:

The IT admin can audit the requests for the automation workflows
The Service Requests are audited and can be inspected and rolled back

 Any run of the workflow can be inspected in full detail, look at the tabs in the window:


The IT admin can inspect any run of the workflows
The Admin has full control (see the tabs in the window)


References

Cisco UCS Director
Cisco ACI 
ACI for Simple Minds
ACI for (Smarter) Simple Minds
Invoking UCS Director Workflows via the Northbound API 



April 21, 2015

ACI for (Smarter) Simple Minds


In a previous post I tried to describe the new Cisco ACI architecture in simple terms, from a software designer standpoint.
My knowledge on networking is limited, compared to my colleagues at Cisco that hold CCIE certifications… I am a software guy the just understands the API   ;-)
Though, now I would like to share some more technical information with the same “not for specialists” language.
You can still go to the official documentation for the detail, or look at one of the brilliant demo recorded on YouTube.

These are the main points that I want to describe:
- You don’t program the single switches, but the entire fabric (via the sw controller)
- The fabric has all active links (no spanning tree)
- Policies and performances benefit from a ASIC design that perfectly fits the SDN model
- You can manage the infrastructure as code (hence, really do DevOps)
- The APIC controller manages also L4-7 network services from 3rd parties
- Any orchestrator can drive the API of the controller
- The virtual leaf of the fabric extends into the hypervisor (AVS)
- You get immediate visibility of the Health Score for the Fabric, Tenants, Applications

Next picture shows how the fabric is build, using two types of switches: the Spines are used to scale and connect all the leaves in a non blocking fabric that ensures performances and reliability.
The Leaf switches hold the physical ports where servers are attached: both bare metal servers (i.e. running a Operating System) and virtualized servers (i.e. running ESXi, Hyper-V and KVM hypervisors).
The software controller for the fabric, named APIC, runs on a cluster of (at least) 3 dedicated physical servers and is not in the data path: so it does not affect performances and reliability of the fabric, as it could happen with other solutions on the market.

The ACI fabric supports more than 64,000 dedicated tenant networks. A single fabric can support more than one million IPv4/IPv6 endpoints, more than 64,000 tenants, and more than 200,000 10G ports. The ACI fabric enables any service (physical or virtual) anywhere with no need for additional software or hardware gateways to connect between the physical and virtual services and normalizes encapsulations for Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) / VLAN / Network Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE).

The ACI fabric decouples the endpoint identity and associated policy from the underlying forwarding graph. It provides a distributed Layer 3 gateway that ensures optimal Layer 3 and Layer 2 forwarding. The fabric supports standard bridging and routing semantics without standard location constraints (any IP address anywhere), and removes flooding requirements for the IP control plane Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) / Generic Attribute Registration Protocol (GARP). All traffic within the fabric is encapsulated within VXLAN.

The ACI fabric decouples the tenant endpoint address, its identifier, from the location of the endpoint that is defined by its locator or VXLAN tunnel endpoint (VTEP) address. The following figure shows decoupled identity and location.


Forwarding within the fabric is between VTEPs. The mapping of the internal tenant MAC or IP address to a location is performed by the VTEP using a distributed mapping database. After a lookup is done, the VTEP sends the original data packet encapsulated in VXLAN with the Destination Address (DA) of the VTEP on the destination leaf. The packet is then de-encapsulated on the destination leaf and sent down to the receiving host. With this model, we can have a full mesh, loop-free topology without the need to use the spanning-tree protocol to prevent loops.

You can attach virtual servers or physical servers that use any network virtualization protocol to the Leaf ports, then design the policies that define the traffic flow among them regardless the local (to the server or to its hypervisor) encapsulation.
So the fabric acts as a normalizer for the encapsulation and allows you to match different environments in a single policy.

Forwarding is not limited to nor constrained by the encapsulation type or encapsulation-specific ‘overlay’ network:





As explained in ACI for Dummies, policies are based on the concept of EPG (End Points Group).
Special EPG represent the outside network (outside the fabric, that means other networks in your datacenter or eventually the Internet or a MPLS connection):



The integration with the hypervisors is made through a bidirectional connection between the APIC controller and the element manager of the virtualization platform (vCenter, System Center VMM, Red Hat EVM...). Their API are used to create local virtual networks that are connected and integrated with the ACI fabric, so that policies are propagated to them.
The ultimate result is the creation of Port Groups, or the like of, where VM can be connected.
A Port Groups represents a EPG.
Events generated by the VM lifecycle (power on/off, vmotion...) will be sent back to APIC so that the traffic is managed accordingly.



How Policies are enforced in the fabric

The policy contains a source EPG, a destination EPG and rules known as Contracts, made of Subjects (security, QoS...). They are created in the Controller and pushed to all the leaf switches where they are enforced.
When a packet arrives to a leaf, if the destination EPG is known it is processed locally.
Otherwise it is forwarded to a Spine, to reach the destination EPG through a Leaf that knows it.

There are 3 cases, and the local and global tables in the leaf are used based on the fact that the destination EP is known or not:
1 - If the target EP is known and it's local (local table) to the same leaf, it's processed locally (no traffic through the Spine).
2 - If the target EP is known and it's remote (global table) it's forwarded to the Spine to be sent to the destination VTEP, that is known.
3 - If the target EP is unknown the traffic is sent to the Spine for a proxy forwarding (that means that the Spine discovers what is the destination VTEP).



You can manage the infrastructure as code.

The fabric is stateless: this means that all the configuration/behavior can be pushed to the network through the controller's API. The definition of Contracts and EPG, of POD and Tenants, every Application Profile is a (set of) XML document that can be saved as text.
Hence you can save it in the same repository as the source code of your software applications.

You can extend the DevOps pipeline that builds the application, deploys it and tests it automatically by adding a build of the required infrastructure on demand.
This means that you can use a slice of a shared infrastructure to create a environment just when it's needed and destroy it soon after, returning the resources to the pool.

You can also use this approach for Disaster Recovery, simply building a clone of the main DC if it's lost.

Any orchestrator can drive the API of the controller.

The XML (or JSON) content that you send to build the environment and the policies is based on a standard language. The API are well documented and lot of samples are available.
You can practice with the API, learn how to use them with any REST client and then copy the same calls into your preferred orchestrator.
Though some products have out of the box native integration with APIC (Cisco UCSD, Microsoft), any other can be used easily with the approach I described above.
See an example in The Elastic Cloud Project.

The APIC controller manages also L4-7 network services from 3rd parties. 

The concept of Service Graph allows a automated and scalable L4-L7 service insertion.  The fabric forwards the traffic into a Service Graph, that can be one or more service nodes pre-defined in a series, based on a routing rule.  Using the service graph simplifies and scales service operation: the following pictures show the difference from a traditional management of the network services.




The same result can be achieved with the insertion of a Service Graph in the contract between two EPG:



The virtual leaf of the fabric extends into the hypervisor (AVS).

Compared to other hypervisor-based virtual switches, AVS provides cross-consistency in features, management, and control through Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC), rather than through hypervisor-specific management stations. As a key component of the overall ACI framework, AVS allows for intelligent policy enforcement and optimal traffic steering for virtual applications.

The AVS offers:
  • Single point of management and control for both physical and virtual workloads and infrastructure
  • Optimal traffic steering to application services
  • Seamless workload mobility
  • Support for all leading hypervisors with a consistent operational model across implementations for simplified operations in heterogeneous data centers



Cisco AVS is compatible with any upstream physical access layer switch that complies with the Ethernet standard, including Cisco Nexus Family switches. Cisco AVS is compatible with any server hardware listed in the VMware Hardware Compatibility List (HCL). Cisco AVS is a distributed virtual switch solution that is fully integrated into the VMware virtual infrastructure, including VMware vCenter for the virtualization administrator. This solution allows the network administrator to configure virtual switches and port groups to establish a consistent data center network policy.

Next picture shows a topology that includes Cisco AVS with Cisco APIC and VMware vCenter with the Cisco Virtual Switch Update Manager (VSUM).





 

Health Score

The APIC uses a policy model to combine data into a health score. Health scores can be aggregated for a variety of areas such as for infrastructure, applications, or services.

The APIC supports the following health score types:
      System—Summarizes the health of the entire network.
      Leaf—Summarizes the health of leaf switches in the network. Leaf health includes hardware health of the switch including fan tray, power supply, and CPU.
      Tenant—Summarizes the health of a tenant and the tenant’s applications.



Health scores allow you to isolate performance issues by drilling down through the network hierarchy to isolate faults to specific managed objects (MOs). You can view network health by viewing the health of an application (by tenant) or by the health of a leaf switch (by pod).



You can subscribe to a health score to receive notifications if the health score crosses a threshold value. You can receive health score events via SNMP, email, syslog, and Cisco Call Home.  This can be particularly useful for integration with 3rd party monitoring tools. 

Health Score Use case: 
An application administrator could subscribe to the health score of their application - and receive automatic notifications from ACI if the health of the specific application is degraded from an infrastructure point of view - truly an application-aware infrastructure.


Conclusion

I hope that these few lines were enough to show the advantage that modern network architectures can bring to your Data Center.
Cisco ACI joins all the benefit of the SDN and the overlay networks with a powerful integration with the hardware fabric, so you get flexibility without losing control, visibility and performances.

One of the most important aspects is the normalization of the encapsulation, so that you can merge different network technologies (from heterogeneous virtual environments and bare metal) into a single well managed policy model.

Policies (specifically, the Application Network Policies created in APIC based on EPG and Contracts) allow a easier communication between software application designers and infrastructure managers, because they are simple to represent, create/maintain and enforce.

Now all you need is just a look at ACI Fundamentals on the Cisco web site.


March 17, 2015

The Elastic Cloud project - Porting to UCSD

Porting to a new platform

This post shows how we did the porting of the Elastic Cloud project to a different platform.
The initial implementation was done on Cisco IAC (Intelligent Automation for Cloud) orchestrating Openstack, Cisco ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) and 3 hypervisors.

Later we decided to implement the same use case (deploy a 3 tier application to 3 different hypervisors, using Openstack and ACI) with Cisco UCS Director, aka UCSD.

The objective was to offer another demonstration of flexibility and openness, targeting IT administrators rather than end users like we did in the first project.
You will find a brief description of UCS Director in the following paragraphs: essentially it is not used to abstract complexity, but to allow IT professionals to do their job faster and error-proof.
UCSD is also a key element in a new Cisco end-to-end architecture for cloud computing, named Cisco ONE Enterprise Cloud suite.

The implementation was supported by the Cisco dCloud team, the organization that provides excellent remote demo capabilities on a number of Cisco technologies. They offered me the lab environment to build the new demo and, in turn, the complete demo will be offered publicly as a self service environment on the dCloud platform.

The dCloud demo environment

Cisco dCloud provides Customers, Partners and Cisco Employees with a way to experience Cisco Solutions. From scripted, repeatable demos to fully customizable labs with complete administrative access, Cisco dCloud can work for you. Just login to dcloud.cisco.com with your Cisco account and you'll find all the available demo:


Cisco UCS Director

UCSD is a great tool for Data Center automation: it manages servers, network, storage and hypervisors, providing you a consistent view on physical and virtual resources in your DC.

Despite the name (that could associate it to Cisco UCS servers only) it integrates with a multi-vendor heterogeneous infrastructure, offering a single dashboard plus the automation engine (with a library containing 1300+ tasks) and the SDK to create your own adapters if needed.

UCSD offers open API so that you can run its workflows from the UCSD catalog or from a 3rd party tool (a portal, a orchestrator, a custom script).

There is a basic workflow editor, that we used to create the custom process integrating Openstack, ACI and all the hypervisors to implement our use case. We don't consider UCSD a full business level orchestrator because it's not meant to integrate also the BSS (Business Support Systems) in your company, but it does the automation of the DC infrastructure including Cisco and 3rd party technologies pretty well.

Implementing the service in UCS Director

Description of the process

The service consists in the deployment of the famous 3 tier application with a single click.
The first 2 tiers of the application (web and application servers and their networks) are deployed on Openstack. The first version of the demo uses KVM as the target hypervisor for both tiers, next version will replace one of the Openstack compute nodes with Hyper-V.
The 3rd tier (the database and its network) is deployed on ESXi.
On every hypervisor, virtual networks are created first. Then virtual machines are created and attached to the proper network.

To connect the virtual networks in their different virtualized environments we used Cisco ACI, creating policies through the API of the controller.
One End Point Group is created for each of the application tiers, Contracts are created to allow the traffic to flow from one tier to next one (and only there).
If you are not familiar with the ACI policy model, you can see my ACI for Dummies post.

All these operations are executed by a single workflow created in the UCSD automation engine.
We just dropped the tasks from the library to the workflow editor, provided input values for each task (from the output of previous tasks) and connected them in the right sequence drawing arrows.
The resulting workflow executes the same sequence of atomic actions that the administrator would do manually in the GUI, one by one.

The implementation was quite easy because we were porting an identical process created in Cisco IAC: the tool to implement the workflow is different, but the sequence and the content of the tasks is the same.

Integration out-of-the-box

Most of the tasks in our process are provided by the UCSD automation library: all the operations on ACI (through its APIC controller) and on ESXi VM and networks (through vCenter).




When you use these tasks, you can immediately see the effect in the target system.
As an example, this is the outcome of creating a Router in Openstack using UCSD: the two networks are connected in the hypervisor and the APIC plugin in Neutron talks immediately to Cisco ACI, creating the corresponding Contract between the two End Point Groups (please check the Router ID in Openstack and the Contract name in APIC).



 

Custom tasks

The integration with Openstack required us to build custom tasks, adding them to the library.
We created 15 new tasks, to call the API exposed by the Openstack subsystems: Neutron (to create the networks) and Nova (to create the VM instances).
The new tasks were written in Javascript, tested with the embedded interpreter, then added to the library.




After that, they were available in the automation library among the tasks provided by the product itself.
This is a very powerful demonstration of the flexibility and ease of use of UCSD.



I should add that the custom integration with Openstack was built for fun, and as a demonstration.
To implement the deployment of the tiers of the application to 3 different hypervisors we could use the native integration that UCSD has with KVM, Hyper-V and ESXi (through their managers).
There's no need to use Openstack as a mediation layer, as we did here.


The workflow editor

Here you can drag 'n drop the task, validate the workflow, run the process to test it and see the executed steps (with their log and all their input and output values).









Amount of effort

The main activities in building this demo are two:
- creating the custom tasks to integrate Openstack
- creating the process to automate the sequence of atomic tasks.

The first activity (skills required: Javascript programming and understanding of the Openstack API) took 1 hour per task: a total of 2 days.
Jose, who created the custom tasks, has also published a generic custom task to execute REST API calls from UCSD: https://github.com/erjosito/stuff/blob/master/UCSD_REST_custom_tasks.wfdx
In addition, he suggests a simple method to understand what REST call corresponds to a Openstack CLI command.
If you use the  --debug option in the Openstack CLI you will see that immediately.

As an example, to boot a new instance:
nova --debug boot --image cirros-0.3.1-x86_64-uec --flavor m1.tiny --nic net-id=f85eb42a-251b-4a75-ba90-723f99dbd00f vm002


The second activity (create the process, test it step by step, expose it in the catalog and run it end to end) took 3 sessions of 2 hours each.
This was made easier by the experience we matured during the implementation of the Elastic Cloud Project. We knew already the atomic actions we needed to perform, their sequence and the input/output parameter for each action.
If we had to build everything from scratch, I would add 2-3 days to understand the use case.


Demo available on dCloud

The demo will be published on the Cisco dCloud site soon for your consumption.
There are also a number of demonstrations available already, focused on UCS Director.
You can learn how UCSD manages the Data Center infrastructure, how it drives the APIC controller in the ACI architecture, and how it is leveraged by Cisco IAC when it uses the REST API exposed by UCSD.

Acknowledgement

A lot of thanks to Simon Richards and Manuel Garcia Sanes from Cisco dCloud, to Russ Whitear from my same team and to Jose Moreno from the Cisco INSBU (Insieme Business Unit).
Great people that focus on Data Center orchestration and many other technologies at Cisco!

You can also find a powerful, yet easy demonstration of how UCSD workflows can be called from a client (a front end portal, another orchestrator...) at Invoking UCS Director Workflows via the Northbound REST API



March 11, 2015

Cloud Computing as an extension of SOA

When I started explaining my view of Cloud Computing as an extension of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) someone didn't take it seriously.
I delivered some TOI sessions to increase the awareness on topics that Cisco was approaching in its transformation into a IT company: software architecture, distributed systems, IT service management. I reused some of the concepts and the slides that I created when I was a SOA evangelist.

The feedback was positive and generated a useful discussion, but I also got few comments like: "this is old stuff, cloud is different" and "don't be nostalgic".
After those days, indeed, I've seen many articles comparing Cloud and SOA.

And it is natural: both the architectures (actually cloud is a consumption model more that a architecture) are based on the concept of Service. To be precise, to offer and consume cloud services you need to build a SOA.



It is easy to understand: to begin with, the consumer of a cloud service wants to delegate the build, the ownership and the operations to a third party, that assumes the responsibility for the SLA.
The service is considered a function that someone else provides to you, and you only care the interface to access it (and the quality and the price). You are interested only in the protocol and the user interface - or the API - plus the URL where you get the service.



The actual implementation is not your business. The service (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) can run on any platform, in any part of the world, fully automated or manual, implemented in any of the hundreds of programming languages. You just don't care, as long as they respect the SLA.



Definitions

The most known definition of cloud computing is from NIST:
 

While SOA was defined, when I was at BEA Systems (one of the SOA pioneers), in this way:
SOA is an architectural approach that enables the creation of loosely coupled
interoperable business services that can be easily shared  
within and between enterprises.


A slightly more technical definition is: "Service-Oriented Architecture is an IT strategy that organizes the discrete functions contained in enterprise applications into interoperable, standards-based services that can be combined and reused quickly to meet business needs.

You can find a discussion of the SOA reference architecture (sorry, it's limited to my italian readers...) here. Also IBM has a good definition of SOA here.

 

SOA concepts that apply to Cloud 

There are some concepts that you find in both the models: each one would deserve a dedicated post, or maybe a book. I will try to give some essential detail in this post.

  • The concept of Service: Consumer and Provider’s responsibility
  • Distributed systems, where remote API are invoked over standard protocols
  • Separation of concerns: interface vs implementation
  • Interface and Contract
  • Reuse and Loose Coupling
  • Service Repository and Service Catalog
  • Service Lifecycle
  • Service Assurance
  • Strategy and Governance

Basic detail 

 

Distributed systems

A distributed system is made of components that are deployed separately, in most cases remotely. Each of them provides a lower level functionality that can be used as a building block for the solution of a business need.
To inter-operate, they need connectivity and a well defined framework for sending and receiving data, managing security, transactions consistency, availability and many other non-functional requirements.

To make the development of such a complex system easier, the software industry has separated the concept of interface from the actual implementation.
The interface of a sw component specifies the functions it implements, the parameters it expects and  returns, their format, the conversation style (sync/async) and the security constraints. It is an artifact that can be produced - and deployed - before the actual implementation is ready: you can generate a stub (or mock) component that always returns fake data, but at least it replies to clients allowing the end to end test of the architecture.

So different developers can split the implementation of the system in components that are built in parallel, based on the definition of the interface that they present to each other. The basic integration test can be executed against a stub, to ensure that the conversation works. This also helps rapid prototyping and agile development.

The separation of the interface from the implementation is fundamental when a distributed system is designed.


A Service = Contract + Interface + Implementation 
The set of the above mentioned artifacts identifies a service.
As I stated, the implementation is not relevant for the consumer of the service - but it must exist, otherwise the service cannot be delivered.
The interface is the only visible part of the service, because the consumer will use that one. Depending on the service, it could be a GUI or the API that a client program invokes.
The most important part is the Contract: the agreement (generally defined in a document) defining who has the right to consume the service, the credentials, the price, the SLA, the constraints (e.g. the response time is granted up to 1000 transactions per second), and more.


A given interface could be offered with two distinct contracts, e.g. with different security requirements. Or different price, or different SLA, ect.
If you do that, a new service is generated (a different triple of contract+interface+implementation):


And of course you can differentiate the interface (e.g. sysnchronous vs asynchronous, that is pretty easy if you use a service bus). Also the addition of a new interface will generate a new service:



Reuse and Loose Coupling 

The effort of building a service in a way that makes it reusable is bigger than just implementing a local component in a software project.
Potential consumers of the service will trust it if it is robust enough, it scales, it is secure, etc.
You need to provide information on what the service does, how to use it, how do you support it.
So a business justification is needed for the additional effort to create a reusable service, both for internal usage (SOA) or as a cloud service.

The integration between service consumers and providers should not create tight dependencies, to allow for innovation and maintenance. Coupling refers to the degree of direct knowledge that one element has of another. The separation of the interface from the implementation plays an important role here, because one could change the implementation without affecting the published interface.
In case of major changes, versioning the interface helps.
See also these definitions of loose coupling on Wikipedia and Techtarget.


Service Repository and Service Catalog

I said that you need to provide information on the service and, eventually, market it. If potential consumers don't know that it exists, they will never use it. They also need descriptive info and technical details.
This is true when you build services for the enterprise architecture, even more if you want to sell them in the cloud. 

An important element of the Service Oriented Architecture was the Service Repository. A central point where all the artifacts produced by projects are exposed for reuse, complemented by the Registry offering a link to the service end points.
Now we have the concept of Service Catalog, managing the entire life cycle of a cloud service: from the inception to the decommissioning, passing through cost models and tenants management.
You can find a definition of a service catalog and its usage in this excellent free book: Defining IT Success Through the Service Catalog

 

Service Lifecycle

When a new service is created, you need to design its provisioning process - that could include fully automated or manual steps, including authorizations - its cost model, the management of the resources allocated for a tenant, the assurance of the quality of the service, the billing and end user reporting, the decommissioning and returning the resource to the shared pool.

It is good to have tools to manage all these phases of the life cycle. A choice of CMS (Cloud Management Systems) is offered by Cisco, that have a solution for a ready to run cloud implementation with pre built services (Cisco Intelligent Automation for Cloud, aka IAC) and the just released Cisco ONE Enterprise Cloud suite, a flexible environment where you can create new services with a very little effort, in a bottom-up approach (from the infrastructure to the catalog).
Both the suites use Cisco Prime Service Catalog (PSC) and the front end. PSC is ranked very high by analysts when they examine the features of service catalogs on market.

 

Service Assurance

Monitoring the infrastructure is essential, if you are a service provider. But it is not enough, because you can't immediately correlate the health status of the infrastructure with the quality of the services that consumers perceive (availability, response time, completeness of the result...).
More sophisticated tools are needed to report the services heath score to the Operations team and to the end users, and to allow troubleshooting.
Root cause analysis is the investigation of the ultimate cause for a service failure that could be due to software, servers, network, storage.
Impact analysis is the notification of the list of services impacted by a fault in the infrastructure, that helps the Operations team to restore the services before consumers complain for a violation of the SLA.

Strategy and Governance

IT governance provides the framework and structure that links IT resources and information to enterprise goals and strategies. Furthermore, IT governance institutionalizes best practices for planning, acquiring, implementing, and monitoring IT performance, to ensure that the enterprise's IT assets support its business objectives.

In recent years, IT governance has become integral to the effective governance of the modern enterprise. Businesses are increasingly dependent on IT to support critical business functions and processes; and to successfully gain competitive advantage, businesses need to manage effectively the complex technology that is pervasive throughout the organization, in order to respond quickly and safely to business needs.

In addition, regulatory environments around the world are increasingly mandating stricter enterprise control over information, driven by increasing reports of information system disasters and electronic fraud. The management of IT-related risk is now widely accepted as a key part of enterprise governance.

It follows that an IT governance strategy, and an appropriate organization for implementing the strategy, must be established with the backing of top management, clarifying who owns the enterprise's IT resources, and, in particular, who has ultimate responsibility for their enterprise-wide integration.

I discussed this topic with reference to SOA (only in italian, again... sorry) in SOA è solo tecnologia? and in
6 errori da non fare in un progetto SOA

 

Enterprise Service Bus

The ESB is a core component in the SOA Reference Architecture. It has the role of a mediation layer between the consumers and the providers of any service, managing the match of available interfaces, the security, the quotas and - in general - the enforcement of the Contract.
The ESB is the backbone of a Enterprise Architecture where new projects benefit from reusing already implemented services.

When you think about cloud, the public interface to available services is offered publicly to consumers. Very often, it consists in a set of API to provision and consume the services. A ESB is not strictly required to expose your implementation as a service, but it can certainly help.
Creating multiple interfaces, as long as new contracts are defined for a service, is just a few clicks activity. There are many ESB available as commercial products, next paragraph shows one example but the same capabilities are commonly available on the market and in the open source.

ESB Core Capabilities (courtesy of Mule Soft - http://www.mulesoft.com/platform/soa/mule-esb-open-source-esb):
  • Service Mediation
    Separate business logic from protocols and message formats for rapid, nimble development and long-term flexibility.
  • Service Orchestration
    Coordinate and arrange multiple services and expose them as a second-generation composite application.
  • Service Creation & Hosting
    Expose app functionality as a service and create an efficient standards-based architecture or host existing services in lightweight containers.
  • Message Routing
    Direct messages based on content or predetermined rules and filter, aggregate, or re-sequence as required.
  • Data Transformation
    Transform data to and from any format across heterogeneous transport protocols and data types or enhance incomplete messages.
  • Event Handling
    Deliver synchronous and asynchronous events, transactions, streaming, routing patterns, and a SEDA architecture.

So are SOA and Cloud identical?

Of course not. They have a lot of common concerns, but while SOA was created to address IT and business needs in a single Enterprise context, Cloud is a wider model that offers commercial services across companies.
There's still the private cloud model, where services are offered internally.
Here we have the same self service consumption model, so the automation of the provisioning is critical as well as the quality of the Service Catalog that you offer to consumers.

The most important lesson from SOA that we can reuse in Cloud is that the human factor is sometimes more impactful than the technology.
Change management is one of the key initiatives that help winning the resistance (both in the IT organization, when a new operational model is adopted, and across consumers that are offered a new way of using applications or implementing new projects). 

A proper documentation of the services is key, and the definition of a go-to-market strategy before you start your journey is fundamental: technology should not be adopted because it's smart or because others are doing the same.
It should always be functional to business requirements and be aligned with the corporate strategy.

March 1, 2015

ACI for Simple Minds

Cisco ACI means Application Centric Infrastructure 

Why application designers and developers don't want to speak to network engineers. 


In my previous life I was an enterprise architect and I led design and development of software systems in many projects. When we were in the phase of planning the procurement and the setup of the various environments for the project (dev, test, QA, prod) I was bored by the meetings with the infrastructure guys.
What I needed was a given amount of memory and CPU power, that I could calculate myself, on a single big server or on a number of smaller machines. Then I needed connectivity among the different deployment units in my architecture (a cluster of web servers, a cluster of application servers, a database and some pre-existing systems), and just some services like load balancing.
But those nasty network engineers and the ugly security guys wanted to discuss a long list of requirements and settings: vlans, ip addresses, subnets, firewalls, quality of service, access lists   :-(
I was only interested in application tiers and dependencies, SLA, application performances and compliance and I wanted to discuss that in my language, not in their unfamiliar slang.


How the system engineers see the world: a number of devices with their configuration.

 


How I see the world: a number of servers (or processes) with their role in the application. We can call them End Points.




The communication can be described as a contract.

Provided by some end points, consumed by others. 

And saved as a reusable policy, that could be applied to End Point Groups:

 


Eventually, network services like load balancers or firewalls can be added (creating a service graph):



You can easily understand that our meetings were not that easy    ;-)
It was not their fault (and of course it was not... mine): we only saw the world from different angles, or maybe with different glasses.

For the software guys, abstracting the topology of the deployment is essential. For the system guys, devil is in the detail and they need to know exactly what traffic is flowing to engineer the setup accordingly.

Having a set of policies that describe the desired behavior makes the conversation easy: what service is offered by a end point group, what group (or single end point) can consume it, what SLA should be enforced, etc... Contracts could be: access to a web application on http on port 80, access to montoring agents or to log collectors, access to a LDAP server for authentication and so on.
You will see later in the post that ACI allows this conversation.

After long discussions and escalations, the setup of the environment was never as fast as I needed.
It was not the DevOps time yet, but we still tried to roll out many builds of the application for rapid prototyping and quick wins.


Now imagine that you were able to agree on the policy definition.
Having an instant enforcement of those policies on all your network devices without touching them one by one, in a consistent way that prevents human errors and grants compliance by default, and have it done soon would be a miracle... or a magic.

Now we have a network architecture that makes this miracle real: Cisco ACI.
A single software controller (redundant, of course) manages all the network connectivity, security and the network services like load balancers and firewalls.
The network is a hardware fabric, with great performances, scalability, resiliency that I will not discuss here (see the links below for the detail), that extends smoothly into the virtual networks of any vendor or open source solution enforcing the policies for physical servers and VM as end points without any difference.
The controller (named APIC) has a GUI but, most important, a rich set of open API that can be invoked by your scripts, by orchestration tools from Cisco or 3rd parties, by cloud management systems.
You can create the policy from here, and also see the "telemetry" of the network with easy display of the health score of the fabric or individual applications as well.






Use cases for ACI

Fast provisioning

A stateless network like ACI can be provisioned and completely reshaped in seconds by pushing new policies through the controller.
This concept is pretty similar to what the UCS Service Profile made possible in the server industry, introducing the stateless computing.
You can add the complete configuration for a new application to a multitenant shared infrastructure, you can create a new tenant environment, you can create the test environment and the production environment just by cloning the development environment and applying any needed policies to ensure compliance.
Everything is represented as a XML document or a JSON data structure: in any case a small piece of text data that can be saved, versioned and built automatically by a automation script or tool.
Infrastructure as code is one of the pillars of DevOps.

Physical and virtual networking managed the same

When you design End Point Groups and their Contracts, they can be mapped to physical servers (i.e. servers running a single Operating System, like Linux, Unix or Windows servers) or to VM running on any hypervisor.
Traffic from a VM is encapsulated and isolated from other VM's, then the policies are applied to allow it to flow to the destination (physical or virtual).
The spine-leaf architecture of the fabric is extended by a virtual leaf that runs in the hypervisor, under the control of the APIC Controller.



Service Graph

The integration of network services (LB, FW, etc.) from 3rd parties is easy thanks to the Opflex protocol, that allows the extension of the declarative style (vs imperative) of the configuration.
You can add the services to a contract and all the end point that offer and consume that contract will benefit from the insertion without any need for local configuration (e.g. changing the default gateway to the newly inserted firewall).
Many 3rd party vendors added - or will add soon - Opflex agents to their product. The wide ecosystem of ACI becomes richer every day.

Easy deprovisioning

Often, when an existing application is deprovisioned, the network and security configurations created for it are not deleted.
This is due to different reasons: either because it's hard to find them (not all the organizations use a CMDB to track everything) or because the responsible for the operation is afraid of removing firewall rules, ACL, vlans that could potentially be used by a different application, creating a problem as a consequence.




If you have all the policies for a given application defined as attributes of a specific Application Network Profile in APIC, simply removing that ANP will clean all the configurations. You were not applying rules to ports (where other application could be attached) but to end points.



Finally, what advantages can you get from ACI?


Centralized Policy-Defined Automation Management
 • Holistic application-based solution that delivers flexibility and automation for agile IT
 • Automatic fabric deployment and configuration with single point of management
 • Automation of repetitive tasks, reducing configuration errors

Open and Comprehensive End-to-End Security
 • Open APIs, open standards, and open source elements that enable software flexibility for DevOps teams, and firewall and application delivery controller (ADC) ecosystem partner integration
 • Automatic capture of all configuration changes integrated with existing audit and compliance tracking solutions
 • Detailed role-based access control (RBAC) with fine-grained fabric segmentation

Real-Time Visibility and Application Health Score
 • Centralized real-time health monitoring of physical and virtual networks
 • Instant visibility into application performance combined with intelligent placement decisions
 • Faster troubleshooting for day-2 operation

Application Agility
 • Management of application lifecycle from development, to deployment, to decommissioning in minutes
 • Automatic application deployment and faster provisioning based on predefined profiles
 • Continuous and rapid delivery of virtualized and distributed applications

If you liked this post, you may want to read also ACI for (smarter) Simple Minds. You have passed the basic stage now   :-)

Links

Serious product documentation

ACI Marketing page
ACI at a glance
ACI in one page
Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI) Documentation
Learning ACI - Adam's blog

Cartoons (2 min. each)