1. Industry VM Trends as They
Compare with Current VM
Standards

2. Virtualization
• End-Goal
– Leverage current and viable infrastructure and process
technologies with application architecture
– Expedite adoption of VM technologies and cost savings with
future technologies via more thorough application interface
• Virtualization Opportunities
– Environmental Limitations
• Security
• Network
• Operational
– More Thorough Unix Virtualization Roadmap Needed
• Solaris is the only mature roadmap being investigated
• Linux on VMWare has not been accepted due to limitations
– Lack of Direction Towards Storage Virtualization

3. Typical Virtualized Host
Operating System Details
All Include a
System
Most are Independent of Solaris is Exception Virtualization
“Hypervisor” Underneath
Hosted OS Stack* Today
Hosted OS
VM Physical Host
Shared Physical Resources
Network/IO
Storage CPU Memory OS
Subsystems*
OS
OS VM
VM
VM OS
VM
Management Hypervisor/Host OS (ESX)
Centralized Resource Mgmt Network Consolidation*
Shared Resources
CPU Memory Storage Network I/O
Typical Footprint
Not Large SAN Not High IO ISV Validation Might Be
Requirements Requirements Required

4. Virtualization Risks
Network and Security
Internal Switch Required on Some Technologies Not Allowed by
DMZ and SSN Now Allowed and Can’t Span Networks
Network / Security
Licensing
3rd Party Layered SW Needs to
Functional Use Best fit for Virtual Instances Charge by Re-Use Must Be Closely
Application Only Requirements Be Closely Examined CPU (Multi Core Approach Risk) Monitored
Management
Departments May Have Different Access Difficulty in Consolidation Access in ISV Validation Critical for Short and Long
Criteria Specific Government – Type Departments Term Strategies
Financial
Chargeback Mechanism Needed Before
Financial Question Need to Be Answered Asset Ownership
Massive Proliferation of Technology

5. VMs and Network/Security
• Issues
– Network/Security standards targeted to silos
– Lack of communication/relationship of a common goal
• Opportunities
– Leverage current and viable technologies with cooperation
with Network/Security
– Expedite VM technologies and cost savings with future
technologies or viable non standard technology
• Next Steps
– Setup a COE with Network/Security
• Short term goals
• Long term goals
– Elicit participation from Operations, Architecture and
Business Unit Teams

6. Verizon Internal Data Network**
Different Network
Trust Regions
Server Server
G H
Definitions:
Restricted SSN DMZ
SSN: Secure Subnet, access
Zone
systems and to mgmt consoles
and mgmt system is restricted.
Filter request in a per application
basis/submission.
DMZ: The same definition as SSN,
Server Server Server
except we have customer facing
A C E
systems.
Restricted Zones: Areas where we Server Server Server
might have cages and government B D F
security guidelines that apply to
personnel. Could be in a DMZ or
SSN as well as regular Network.
**Terminology might differ depending on the business unit

7. Proposed Virtualization @ Segment Level
Legend
IDN SSN or DMZ
Instance Color Denotes Virtual
Physical Host 1 Application or OS Instance
Denotes 2 Separate
Instances of Same
A B
A B
Application or OS
Physical Host
•Different IDN qualified OS/App
instances can be virtualized inside the
Physical Host 2
OS OS
same physical servers
•SSN or DMZ OS/App instances can
A B only be virtualized inside of physical
servers dedicated for that specific
OS OS
application
•A new physical server required for the
Physical Host 3
turn up of a new application in SSN or
DMZ
•Can not bridge physical or virtual
A B
instances across network segments
(IDN to SSN and/or DMZ bridging)

8. Proposed Centralized Physical Host Access
and VM Firewalls
•App/OS virtualized
instances inside of a
Physical Host/Hypervisor
physical host are required
to have their own firewall
established as if they
were an ordinary physical
server
•Console access to the Regardless of
Network Segment
physical host/hypervisor App/OS App/OS
Placement,
is restricted and needs to Instance B Instance B OS/Zone Firewall
be accessed via a secured
Required
method
•The access and
Secure
standardization of such Access
console and process will
Console Access
be key for
network/security
agreement to further VM
Infrastructures

9. Existing VM Transfers Between Physical
Systems @ Internal Data Network Segment
Right hand side
description points out IDN
V-Motion like
today’s ability to migrate
procedures
Physical Host 1 Physical Host 2
between physical hosts.
allowed across
different
This is something that is
physical hosts
App A App B App B App C
allowed in our VMWare
with different
farms and could also be
applications at
implemented across
IDN only
different non VMWare VM
Free App E Free App G
infrastructures

10. Proposed VM Transfers Between Physical
Systems @ SSN and/or DMZ Segments
Right hand side
SSN or DMZ
description points out
V-Motion like
today’s ability to migrate
procedures
Physical Host 1 Physical Host 2
between physical hosts.
allowed across
different
In this example, we’re
physical hosts
A B B Free
more constricted. We can
as long as
migrate VM across
physical hosts
physical servers, only
are isolated to
when they’re part of the
the same
C Free D Free
same application because
application
each application must
reside in the same subnet

11. Proposed Optimization of
Virtualization @ Physical Layer
• We’d like to get to a point
IDN/DMZ/SSN
where the virtualization
technologies and security
allows us to mix different
network environments
Physical Host
• Preferred technology
App A&D Prod & Dev
(IDN Dedicated NIC)
would be integrated
A B
virtual I/O instead of
App B
dedicated interface cards
(DMZ Dedicated NIC)
• We’ll need further
C D
reviews with security and
App C
(SSN Dedicated NIC)
network to allow this to
happen
Integrated Virtual I/O
Interfaces

12. Example of Lack of Strategic Load
Balancing Standard for VMs
Example of a recent
project in which a request
for Load Balancing services
could not be provided due
to rules regarding LB and
subnets.
In this example, intelligent
LB needs to be provided by
BUA for systems located in
BUB. Network path access
from BUB users would be
twice that of BUA and in
the event BUB was the
only user, then it would be
counter productive.

13. Linux and VM
• State Today
– Linux targeted as strategic goal for enterprise
– Part of thrust into Open Source Solutions
– No viable virtualization strategy for ML (Medium/Large)
Linux Requirements {Medium/Large make up most of the
requests}
• Linux Virtualization Opportunities
– Modification of Current Standards
• Unisys Intel architecture scales vertically
• IBM Intel architecture scales vertically
• HP/IBM midrange offerings provide most mature Linux VM
technologies
– Accelerate Application from DB/Web Segregation
• Decrease application with OS dependent footprint
• Reduce size of OS dependent footprint for Linux

14. Goal for SUN and VMWare Virtualized
Environments
VMWare Physical Host SUN Physical Host
Windows
Solaris 10
Windows
Linux VM Solaris 10 Container
VM Solaris 10
VM Linux Solaris 10 Container
Container
VM Container
Hypervisor/Host OS (ESX) Solaris 10 Global Zone
Shared Resources Shared Resources
CPU Memory Storage Network I/O CPU Memory Storage Network I/O
SPARC Based SUN System Benefits
Intel Based ESX Farm Benefits
• Cost Effective
• Cost Effective, Large Consolidation Factor 12:1
• Supports Large Solaris Footprints
• Supports Linux, Windows, Solaris (Non Standard)
• Hypervisor and Guest VM Independence Limitations
Limitations • Only Supports Solaris 10
• Global Zone and Container Dependency
• Large Linux VM Footprints Do Not Fit Here
• Smaller Consolidation Factor (OPS Target 4:1)
• Need to Maintain Large Consolidation Factor

15. Example: EOSL
(end of serviceable life) to Virtualized Targets
EOSL Port to Virtualization Target
Candidates Target OS
Linux &
VMWare Farm
Solaris 10
Legacy
Linux Linux
Tru64
VM VM
HP
Linux
App/HW
Eval
Redhat Linux
VM
Code Virtualization
Legacy Port Assessment
Solaris
3rd Party
SUN Solaris
Port SUN Containers
10
Solaris Solaris
Container Container
Legacy AIX
IBM
Solaris
Container

16. Goal for SUN and VMWare Virtualized
Environments
VMWare Physical Host SUN Physical Host
Windows
Solaris 10
Windows
Linux VM Solaris 10 Container
VM Solaris 10
VM Linux Solaris 10 Container
Container
VM Container
Hypervisor/Host OS (ESX) Solaris 10 Global Zone
Shared Resources Shared Resources
CPU Memory Storage Network I/O CPU Memory Storage Network I/O
SPARC Based SUN System Benefits
Intel Based ESX Farm Benefits
• Cost Effective
• Cost Effective, Large Consolidation Factor 12:1
• Supports Large Solaris Footprints
• Supports Linux, Windows, Solaris (Non Standard)
• Hypervisor and Guest VM Independence Limitations
Limitations • Only Supports Solaris 10
• Global Zone and Container Dependency
• Large Linux VM Footprints Do Not Fit Here
• Smaller Consolidation Factor (OPS Target 4:1)
• Need to Maintain Large Consolidation Factor

17. Vendor Strength’s & Weakness
HP IBM SUN VMWare
Strength Strength Strength Strength
• 4 Major OS Offerings • Leaders in • Solaris Footprint is • 3 Major OS Offerings
Virtualization considerable
• Mature vPar and • Industry Accepted
Future VM • Leaders in Mgmt • Lower Cost • Mature Product
Capabilities Aspects of • Cost
Virtualization
• P5 and P6
Performance
Unmatched
Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness
• Dependence on • Can be Expensive if • Reliance on Solaris 10 • Dependence on AMD
Itanium not Properly Used and X86 Architecture
• Limited to 2
• Decreasing OpenVMS • Limited to 2 Supported OSes • Vertical Scalability
Market Supported OSes • ISV Support
• Future ISV Support

18. Storage Virtualization
• State Today
– 3 Business Units on Different Technologies
– Centralization of Support Organizations
• Linux Virtualization Opportunities
– Virtualization @ Frame Level
• Less complicated to execute
• Exists today
• Vendor lock possible
– Virtualization outside the frame
• Outside component
– Has been proven and functional at other companies
– Adds another layer of complexity
• @ Cisco/Router/Switch Level
– Not as widespread as other technologies
– Possibly biggest benefit as technology drives towards fiber encapsulation

19. Storage Virtualization Options
Current , Available Most Common Storage Virtualization Technologies
and Possible Storage Vendors such as HDS Vendors such as IBM can
Virtualization can provide @ frame provide @ external component
level level
Strategies
External Component
@ Frame Level
HDS IBM
Current:
server server
No standard storage virtualization
roadmap will hinder future server
virtualization technologies. Data
growth is out-pacing storage cost Virtualization @ Switch/Router Layer
decline due to PCI/SOX requirements. Future Fiber Virtualization Would Occur
within IP Within the Cisco Layer
Encapsulation
No storage ILM direction will continue
to increase cost Switch Fabric
Storage Virtualization
Environment
IP Switching
Future:
Any
There are 3 viable options. Virtualize
Frame
within frame, go outside of frame or server
possibly go with a Cisco/Switch
Solution for storage virtualization