Comment on Virtualizing my router - any experience to share? Pos/cons?
non_burglar@lemmy.world 14 hours agoHA… Do you mean failover? It would need some consideration, either a second wan link or accepting that a few TCP sessions might reset after the cutover, even with state sync. But it’s definitely doable.
I’m currently in a state of ramping down my hardware from a 1u dual Xeon to a more appropriate solution on less power-hungry gear, so I’m not as interested in setting up failover if it means adding to my power consumption simply for the uptime. After 25 years in IT, its become clear to me that the solutions we put in place at work come with some downsides like power consumption, noise, complexity and cost that aren’t offset by any meaningful advantage.
All that said, i did run that setup for a few years and it does perform very well. The one advantage of having a router virtualized was being able to revert to a snapshot if an upgrade failed, which is a good case for virtualizing a router on its own.
notfromhere@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
Yea either failover or an active/active virtual switch… I’ve been toying with hyperconverged infrastructure and I wanted to bring my network infra into the fold, been looking at OVS. Not for any particular use case, just to learn how it works and I really like the concept of horizontally scaling out my entire infra just by plugging in another box of commodity hardware. Also been toying with a concept of automatically bootstrapping the whole thing.
non_burglar@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
OVS is fine, you can make live changes and something like spanning port traffic is a bit less hassle than using tc, but beyond that, it’s not really an important component to a failover scenario over any other vswitch, since it has no idea what a TCP stream is.