​David Clark of MIT has written the foreword for every edition of "Computer Networks: A Systems Approach" since its inception. Here is his foreword to the soon-to-be-released sixth edition.

Readers: before you start the book, first take a moment and set your time machine to 1996. That is when the first edition of this book was published. Do you remember 1996? Were you alive then?  People forget how long ago the foundations of the Internet were laid.

In 1996, the NSFNET had just been decommissioned, and the commercial phase of the Internet was just beginning. The first search engine (Alta Vista—do you remember?) had just been demonstrated. Content delivery networks did not exist-- Akamai was founded two years later in 1998, the same year Google was officially born. Cloud was only a distant haze on the horizon. And there was no such thing as residential broadband or consumer wireless.  We used dialup modems—the 56K modem had just been invented. There were packet radios before then, but they were slower than dialup and the size of a beer fridge. You needed a truck or at least a Jeep to be mobile.

And in 1995 or so, Larry and Bruce decided to write this book. It may be hard, from today’s perspective, to remember how important a book like this was in 1996. It captured a lot of tacit knowledge and made it available to anyone who would read. And rather than just reciting a series of protocol descriptions, it taught how the parts fit together. It taught how the Internet worked, not just what the parts were.

One way to think about how the Internet has evolved is through the lens of the application designer. After all, the purpose of the Internet as a packet transport system is to support apps. Only geeks and performance freaks send packets for the fun of it.  In 1996, if you wanted to build an application, the ecosystem included the IP packet transport service, TCP to smooth out the losses at the Internet layer, the DNS, and that was about it. Anything else the application designer needed had to be built from scratch.

Now an application designer has lots of resources to build on: cloud and cloud networks, other global networks that can hook services together, CDNs, app development environments and so on. Some of these may seem quite different from what we had in 1996 and in detail they are. Consider cloud. (I hate the choice of the term—to me “cloud” suggests something soft and fluffy, but if you have ever seen a data center the size of a football field that sucks megawatts, you would not think soft and fluffy. But never mind…) Data centers have become very sophisticated about cost, energy efficiency, performance and resilience. There is a lot to learn about how to build a modern data center. But the fundamentals are the same: packet forwarding, statistical capacity sharing, transport protocols, routing protocols, the pursuit of generality and broad utility, and the like.

Looking forward, technologies such as cloud are clearly central and this edition devotes considerable attention to cloud. Requirements such as improving security are critical, and the book discusses additional issues related to security: trust, identity, and the latest hot topic—blockchain.  However, if you were to look at the first edition, many of the foundational concepts are the same. But this edition is the modern version of the story, with up to date examples and modern technology. Enjoy.


David Clark
MIT
October 2020

We recently sat down for a conversation with Martin Casado of Andreesen Horowitz. The transcript below has been lightly edited for clarity.

Bruce Davie (BD) - Okay, so I'm here today with Martin Casado. We're doing another episode
of Coffee with Bruce. Martin, welcome.

Martin Casado (MC) - Happy to be here with
my chrysanthemum tea.

BD - Alright, yeah. Dealing with time zones and all, it's kind of late for coffee there, I guess. So, Martin Casado really needs very little introduction but in case you've been living under a rock, Martin was one of the founders of Nicira, was the person who successfully recruited me to go and work at Nicira, starting off an eight year journey into network virtualisation for me.  And these days he's a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz.  And so Martin, I've got a few things I wanted to talk about today. First of all, I want to talk a little bit about some of the things we experienced at Nicira in the early days of network virtualisation.

I think when I joined, you guys had already established that you had this plan to disrupt networking and change it in a pretty significant way. So I guess first thing I wanted to say looking back now, I think it was what 2007 that you founded Nicira. It's a lot of years to look back on now. Are you happy with where things ended up?

Martin Casado (MC) - So yes. Yes, I'm quite happy.

It's interesting though, when we started the company, if you would have looked at what our aspirations were, it was "start with the data center and then change all of networking". And every new bit of networking is another feature on the same technical platform.

And it turns out, every new bit of networking is actually a separate industry, right?

So I think originally we had pretty broad ambitions, which it's fun to see the industry play out totally independent of what we're doing. I mean, that's been fantastic.

But if you look at, I was actually looking back. If you look at our Series A deck, when we're like, okay, we're going to start, and we're going to focus on the data center and network virtualisation. If you look at the timelines that we played out and what actually happened, it was actually pretty much in line.

And so I think in the area that we decided to focus on, you know, it's been great to see the realisation. 

BD - Yeah, and honestly, SD-WAN for me is just the continuation of the Nicira vision. It's just that it got done by other companies. And the first time somebody explained SD-WAN to me, it was like, oh, you're doing what Nicira did, but you're gonna do it for the WAN.

And so to that extent, the vision has actually played out quite, quite broadly. It's just, as you say it, wasn't on a single technical platform.

MC - I know that's exactly, yeah. I think that's exactly right. The lower you go in the stack, the more general the technology, isn't it? So at some level a compiler company is basically every software company on the planet, right? Because you can build anything with a compiler.

So I think that the industry - and we were a very important part of the discourse - the industry at the time was kind of grappling with what does software-defined networking and network virtualisation mean? I think that what we distilled  in that discourse was the right way to build networks, all aspects of networks.

But when it comes to the brass tacks of building a company, who you sell to dictates the kind of company you are, and the specific problems you're tackling dictate the type of engineering organisation that you build.

And what I didn't appreciate that I appreciate now is, absolutely SD-WAN is very much part of the original vision that we had, but how much effort it takes to execute in these separate verticals.

Which is why it's actually so exciting to see companies pull this off. That have both data center and WAN solutions, because they actually have so much potential synergy, but for a startup that's a hard thing to execute on.

BD - Yeah, also you sort of getting onto another thing I want to talk about here, which is actually what kind of company you wanted to build, I thought the culture at Nicira was pretty amazing. My biggest regret is I didn't join earlier just because it was so much fun.

But what was in your mind about how to build the culture? What did you do to go and create the culture at Nicira? And I mean, what are your thoughts on that more broadly.

MC - In some ways, one of our greatest challenges was also our greatest gift. And that was, we started the company in 2007 and then the world ended about a year later, right? If you'll remember with the great recession. And it was like the nuclear winter had set in.

And you probably had two options, which is you band together or you die. And I think that in many ways our culture was galvanised in this tough time. And what it forced in particular is for the company to have a very clear vision that you can march towards. And if the vision wasn't clear, people wouldn't have done it. I mean, they just wouldn't have, just because it was such a scary time.

And so I think 2008, 2009, we just really, really sharpened a vision that everybody believed in. And if someone didn't believe in it they'd speak up because they didn't have anything to lose.

And then we had iterated by the time things were starting to improve, that vision was very clear. And then I think what happened is once you have a vision that you believe in, the work is really realising that vision and an implementation of building product, which it's something that we've just been desperate to do anyways. And so I do think a lot of this was galvanised by, having a tough time.

And I think that being mission focused is something people talk about a lot and it's like, these are the three things on my badge or whatever. And I think that kind of misses the point, which is if you don't have a very high definition kind of like the mountain top that you're tackling, I think people start just meandering in the woods. And I think that was very, very core to the cultural success of the company.

BD - Yeah and to be honest, I've talked about that in terms of how you led the NSBU when we were at VMware together was, I think every staff meeting you would tell us, you know, these are the three things that we're shooting for this year. And you would repeat it every week so that nobody could have any doubt what direction the organisation was moving.

MC - It's always been amazing to me how easy is to lose focus of even very simple things. We're a room of very professional adults at that peak of our career. And we're talking about very simple things like KPIs. 

But I do think in many ways being an operator is managing your own psychology and the hardest part of managing your own psychology is just staying focused on the things that are really important and taking a long view.

And so one thing that I loved as a group that we did is, everybody had the same expectation that we're going to make sure that we're staying on track for a broader goal, and everything is subservient to that.

And I mean, listen I sit on 17 boards now, and I can't tell you how rare that actually is, that people will actually distill all of the trouble and all of the pain, and all of the excitement until you get fairly simple to articulate goals.

BD - What about now that we're moving to this world of much more distributed teams, given the COVID impact on remote working, does that affect the way you think about building a team culture in a startup?

MC - This is one of the big questions that we're trying to answer right now. I think maintaining culture and building culture are actually two different things. In my experience, maintaining culture is something that you can kind of doing the same motions but you may have to do more of them and you may have to adapt them online, but it's not that interesting of a conversation. Does that make sense?

Which is like, yes, you should do it online. Yes, you should have more touch points. Yes, should you be sensitive to people in their personal issues. But these are fairly straightforward conversations to have and you can maintain a strong culture. And quite frankly, we've seen cultures getting even stronger because there's a notion of solidarity, through that.

What I don't know the answer to and I wish I did have an answer because I think everybody's trying to figure it out is, can you create a new culture, right? Can you change a culture?

And I think about - a lot of times - Andreessen Horowitz is a venture firm for example. I mean, it's pretty remarkable to create a tier one venture firm in 10 years, right? It just doesn't happen very often.

And then I ask the question could you do that in the time of COVID, right? Like for sure you can stay being a firm. And so I think it's a great question. I wish I had a better answer, but I would encourage anybody thinking to this to really decouple the two issues of maintaining culture and creating culture.

BD - Yeah, it's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out in the next few years.

So, one of the areas that I've been really interested in for the last few years, and I know you've written about it quite a bit is, is AI and machine learning. And also, I love the fact that when you talk about it, you often talk about it in terms of economics. Because I go all the way back to listening to David Clark at MIT talk about the idea that we should all be economists because you can't really understand networking, unless you think about the economic impact of your design decisions.

What's your thinking about the economics of AI businesses?

MC - Let me actually start with the economics of cloud businesses because it's very interesting. And then we'll back into the economics of AI.


So let's talk about the life cycle of a company that's built in the cloud. So, you know, Bruce Davie creates Bruce Davie inc, and comes to Martin Casado and says, "Hey, Martin, you know, give me $2 million to do my company."

BD - The scenario could totally happen by the way.

MC - So, we're like here, Bruce here's 2 million bucks and you're off looking for product market fit. Now you come back and like, there's some interest here, give me $10 million. So I'll give you $10 million and I join your board.

And so now what happens for every board meeting, the questions I ask are: what's growth look like? What features are we shipping? 

And so you're telling your R&D organisation, we need to grow, we need new features. And that's basically your entire focus. Never once do we talk about things like gross margin or COGS right? And COGS are cost of goods sold, like how much it costs to run this stuff. So you're writing horribly suboptimal code on AWS or wherever.

So, you're doing this and then you've got a real business to say you're 50 million in ARR. You're feeling good and now you've got a real financial investor. Like I'm an investor that invests in ideas and people. And like, right, Bruce is the smartest architect I've ever worked with. Like, this is a great space. Like whatever, I'll invest just in that.

But financial investors actually care about financial metrics, like unit economics, and things like margins matter because they directly impact profitability. So then they look at your company and they're like, hey, listen, this is all great. You've got great growth but basically for every dollar you're making 50 cents goes to Amazon.

You got this huge issue now, which is you spent four years building an R&D team and a business practice around growth because that's what all of the economic incentives including the board have told you to do. And you've got a company now that has low multiples because you've got low margin, right? And then you've got this paradox, what do you do?

So more and more, what we're seeing as soon as companies slow down, they do, what's called repatriation. They're like, listen, like you can't fix that much code. I mean, it took Dropbox years to do it. So we're going to have to find some way to move it onto our own infrastructure or something else to improve those margins.

And I would say there's probably, in SaaS companies as they slowed down, billions of dollars trapped in this margin issue for these companies that are going to the cloud.

Okay, so this is the life cycle you're focusing on growth. You write poor code, you have these kind of relatively fat margins, and now you have to do something about it because it's impacting your valuation. Instead of being valued at $10 billion or $20 billion, you're valued at $10 billion. We're talking about a lot of money that's being impacted.

Okay, so the question with AI/ML to bring it back to that, is it's not clear in the case of the cloud, you could be like, well, I'm paying somebody else, if I do it myself, I can do it cheaper. And maybe if I re-architect it, I do it cheaper.

There's a very open question for AI/ML, which is, is there a way to actually build the company where you, no matter what can have good margins or software level margins.

So I feel like we're going to this escalation of margin crisis. You had traditional software, like in the Microsoft era, say where you ship software to 80% margins because you write it and you shipped it. And copying bits is basically free. You have 80% margins. Now we've have the cloud era, which I just walked through where you have a margin crisis where it is possible to run it on low margins.

But it's something that you have to tackle later on, which is why people think about re-architecting and repatriation.

Now we've got the AI/ML one, which is there's a fundamental question. And it's interesting to talk about is, is it even possible, no matter what you do, to do this on good margins? And the reason that question comes up is if you look at what it takes to create a model, and I'm going to shut up in a second, but if you look at what it takes to create one of these data companies, you have to create a model per customer.

BD - Yeah.

MC - And that's incredibly compute intensive to do it. And then to improve the accuracy of any single model, for example, you require just a ton more data. So you basically have a dis-economy of scale, which is in order to stay ahead, you've got to do more and it costs a lot more.

And so I feel like we're having a margin crisis on top of a margin crisis, like all the cloud margin costs and now the actual structural algorithm cost per AI/ML.

BD - So Martin there's one thing I wanted to drill into. There was this thing about repatriation, because I think that's a bit of a controversial topic. The idea that somehow you can run your private infrastructure more cost-effectively than public-cloud infrastructure.

So maybe you could just give us a little bit of insight on why that's true or back up that assertion.

MC - Yeah, so we've now seen a number of cases I think in the industry to really understand what's going on here. And it's an economic argument. It's strictly an economic argument and I kind of penciled it out, but I want to be a little bit clearer which is, if you look at dollars out the door on any given month, it never makes sense to build a data center, right? Because it takes a lot of dollars out the door in order to do that. However, if you look at multiples of revenue to the valuation of a company, all of a sudden it makes sense, right?

So if you've got 80% gross margins and you're growing at 2X, it may be 10X revenue, for the value of the company. And if your COGS, if your margins are say 40%, it could be 5X. Now that could be the difference between a $10 and a $20 billion company. Now, can you build a data center for $10 billion? The answer is yes, you can buy a whole bunch of them, right?

And then if you purpose built a data center for your app, can you make it more efficient than the cloud? Absolutely, because this is standard. The cloud is built for the long tail of small apps because that's what it caters to. This is nobody's fault, here, it's just the system.

So if you have a sufficiently large workload that you've been focusing on growth where the company slows down, let's take any online SaaS service and that's impacting your margins and therefore it's impacting the valuation of the company. It's actually quite easy to make the argument that, from a shareholder standpoint, it's far, far cheaper to build a data center than not.

BD - Wow, that's brilliant analysis.

We will give people a chance to go and find other ways to dig deeper into some of these topics, but a super interesting discussion Martin.

And I want to say thanks for your time.

MC - Thank you so much.

BD - Alright, cheers. And we'll see you soon.

Earlier this month, Bruce and Larry sat down over Zoom to discuss their shared history researching and developing networking, how "Computer Networks: A Systems Approach" came to be written, and their thoughts on the future of Networking. The interview is on YouTube and the transcript follows.

Bruce Davie: so I'm here today with Larry Peterson. I'm drinking coffee as is my normal habit. I'm guessing it's bit late in the day for you for coffee.

Larry Peterson: Well it isn't too late for a brew of some kind.

Bruce Davie: All right, well, if you want to go and pop up and get a beer, feel free. So, for those of you who don't know, this is Larry Peterson, my co-author on "Computer Networks: A Systems Approach" and Larry and I have known each other since I think early 1990s, when we collaborated on a networking project.

I guess before I go into giving more background about you. I want to know that your cat since the cat theme been showing up a lot

Larry Peterson: He's going to be interrupting here at some point. This is Toby. If you can see him. Yeah, so we live in the desert, which is full of coyotes.  Toby's used up a couple of his lives right outside in our backyard. There's a wall on the other side of that is open desert.  And when he was a few months old a pack of coyotes came in the yard in and got him and took him over the wall. My wife went out and started yelling at the coyotes. We think he has some coyote DNA now.

Bruce Davie: So I have a lot of literally warm memories of visiting you in Arizona. Also remember working with you on a joint research paper sometime in the early 90s and I was locked in my house during an ice storm in New Jersey, and it was literally unsafe to go outside, because there was so much ice on the roads. You were probably soaking up the sun in Arizona.  But it was one of those  early experiences, similar to what we're going through now where we actually could leverage networking to collaborate from a pretty remote distance.

So I think you've actually been in networking longer than I have. And your ageing very well, by the way.  Can you maybe tell me a little bit about your early experiences with networking?

Larry Peterson: Yeah, let's see. Well, I was a grad student at Purdue. I remember the transition from the ARPANET to the Internet and my advisor actually handed me a nine track track tape for our VAX. That had this thing called TCP/IP on it so, yeah, that was my first exposure to it.

Larry Peterson

Two industry trends with significant momentum are on a collision course. One is the cloud, which in pursuit of low-latency/high-bandwidth applications is moving out of the datacenter and towards the edge. The promise and potential of applications ranging from Internet-of-Things (IoT) to Immersive UIs, Public Safety, Autonomous Vehicles, and Automated Factories, has triggered a gold rush to build edge platforms and services. The other is the access network that connects homes, businesses, and mobile devices to the Internet. Network operators (Telcos and CableCos) are transitioning from a reliance on closed and proprietary hardware to open architectures leveraging disaggregated and virtualized software running on white-box servers, switches, and access devices.

The confluence of cloud and access technologies raises the possibility of convergence. For the cloud, access networks provide low-latency connectivity to end users and their devices, with 5G in particular providing native support for the mobility of those devices. For the access network, cloud technology enables network operators to enjoy the CAPEX & OPEX savings that come from replacing purpose-built appliances with commodity hardware, as well as accelerating the pace of innovation through the softwartization of the access network.

It is clear that the confluence of cloud and access technologies at the access-edge is rich with opportunities to innovate, and this is what motivates the CORD-related platforms we are building at ONF. But it is impossible to say how this will all play out over time, with different perspectives on whether the edge is on-premise, on-vehicle, in the cell tower, in the Central Office, distributed across a metro area, or all of the above. With multiple incumbent players—e.g., network operators, cloud providers, cell tower providers—and countless startups jockeying for position, it’s impossible to predict how the dust will settle.

On the one hand, cloud providers believe that by saturating metro areas with edge clusters and abstracting away the access network, they can build an edge presence with low enough latency and high enough bandwidth to serve the next generation of edge applications. In this scenario, the access network remains a dumb bit-pipe, allowing cloud providers to excel at what they do best: run scalable cloud services on commodity hardware. On the other hand, network operators believe that by building the next generation access network using cloud technology, they will be able to co-locate edge applications in the access network. This scenario comes with built-in advantages: an existing and widely distributed physical footprint, existing operational support, and native support for both mobility and guaranteed service.

While acknowledging both of these possibilities, there is a third outcome that not only merits consideration, but is also worth actively working towards: the democratization of the network edge. The idea is to make the access-edge accessible to anyone, and not strictly the domain of incumbent cloud providers or network operators. There are three reasons to be optimistic about this possibility:

1. Hardware and software for the access network is becoming commoditized and open. This is what ONF is working towards, and as a key enabler for Cloud, Telecommunications, and Cable companies, it provides the same value to anyone.
2. There is demand. Enterprises in the automotive, factory, and warehouse space increasingly want to deploy private 5G networks for  a variety of physical automation use cases (e.g., a garage where a remote valet parks your car or a factory floor making use of automation robots).
3. Spectrum is becoming available. Countries are making unlicensed or lightly licensed spectrum for 5G deployments available. The US and Germany are first movers in this arena, with other countries soon to follow. This means 5G should have around 100-200 MHz of spectrum available for private use.

In short, the access network has historically been the purview of the Telcos, CableCos, and the vendors that sell them proprietary boxes, but the softwarization and virtualization of the access network opens the door for anyone (from smart cities to underserved rural areas to apartment complexes to manufacturing plants) to establish an access-edge cloud and connect it to the public Internet. We expect it to become as easy to do this as it is today to deploy a WiFi router. Doing so not only brings the access-edge into new (edgier) environments, but also has the potential to open the access network to developers that instinctively go where there are opportunities to innovate.

The Internet has been described as having a narrow waist architecture, with one universal protocol in the middle (IP), widening to support many transport and application protocols above it (e.g., TCP, UDP, RTP, SunRPC, DCE-RPC, gRPC, SMTP, HTTP, SNMP) and able to run on top of many network technologies below (e.g., Ethernet, PPP, WiFi, SONET, ATM). This general structure has been a key to the Internet becoming ubiquitous: by keeping the IP layer that everyone has to agree to minimal, a thousand flowers were allowed to bloom both above and below. This is now a widely understood strategy for any platform trying to achieve universal adoption.

But something else has happened over the last 30 years. By not addressing all the issues the Internet would eventually face as it grew (e.g., security, congestion, mobility, real-time responsiveness, and so on) it became necessary to introduce a series of additional features into the Internet architecture. Having IP’s universal addresses and best-effort service model was a necessary condition for adoption, but not a sufficient foundation for all the applications people wanted to build.

It is informative to reconcile the value of a universal narrow waist with the evolution that inevitably happens in any long-lived system: the “fixed point” around which the rest of the architecture evolves has moved to a new spot in the software stack. In short, HTTP has become the new narrow waist; the one shared/assumed piece of the global infrastructure that makes everything else possible. This didn’t happen overnight or by proclamation, although some did anticipate it would happen. The narrow waist drifted slowly up the protocol stack as a consequence of a evolution (to mix geoscience and biological metaphors).

Putting the narrow waist label purely on HTTP is an over simplification. It’s actually a team effort, with the HTTP/TLS/TCP/IP combination now serving as the Internet’s common platform.

• HTTP provides global object identifiers (URIs) and a simple GET/PUT interface.
• TLS provides end-to-end communication security.
• TCP provides connection management, reliable transmission, and congestion control.
• IP provides global host addresses and a network abstraction layer.

In other words, even though you are free to invent your own congestion control algorithm, TCP solves this problem quite well, so it makes sense to reuse that solution. Similarly, even though you are free to invent your own RPC protocol, HTTP provides a perfectly serviceable one (which because it comes bundled with proven security, has the added feature of not being blocked by enterprise firewalls), so again, it makes sense to reuse it rather than reinvent the wheel.

Somewhat less obviously, HTTP also provides a good foundation for dealing with mobility. If the resource you want to access has moved, you can have HTTP return a redirect response that points the client to a new location. Similarly, HTTP enables injecting caching proxies between the client and server, making it possible to replicate popular content in multiple locations and save clients the delay of going all the way across the Internet to retrieve some piece of information. (See how in Section 9.4.) Finally, HTTP has been used to deliver real-time multi-media, in an approach known as adaptive streaming. (See how in Section 7.2.)

For almost as long as there have been packet-switched networks, there have been ideas about how to virtualize them. For example, there were early debates in the networking community about the merits of "virtual circuits" versus connectionless networks. But the concept of network virtualization has become more widespread in recent years, helped along by the rise of SDN as an enabling technology. 

Virtualization has a robust history in computer science, but there remains some confusion about precisely what the term means. Arguably this is due in part to confusion caused by colloquial usage of "virtual" as a synonym for "almost", among many other uses.

Virtual memory provides an easy example to help understand what virtualization means in computing. Virtual memory creates an abstraction of a large and private pool of memory resources, even though the underlying physical memory may be shared by many applications and users and considerably smaller than the apparent pool of virtual memory. This abstraction enables programmers to operate under the illusion that there is plenty of memory and that no-one else is using it, while under the covers the memory management system takes care of things like mapping the virtual memory to physical resources and avoiding conflict between users.

Similarly, server virtualization presents the abstraction of a virtual  machine (VM), which has all the features of a physical machine. Again, there may be many VMs supported on a single physical server, and the operating system and users on the virtual machine are happily unaware that the VM is being mapped onto physical resources.

A key point here is that virtualization of computing resources preserves the abstractions that existed before they were virtualized. This is important because it means that users of those abstractions don't need to change - they see a faithful reproduction of the thing being virtualized.

So what happens when we try to virtualize networks? We are able to present familiar abstractions to users of the virtual network, while mapping those abstractions onto the physical network in a way that insulates the user from the complexity of this mapping.

An early success for virtual networking came with the introduction of virtual private networks (VPNs), which allowed carriers to present corporate customers with the illusion that they had their own private network, even though in reality they were sharing underlying resources with many other users. One instance of this was the flavor of VPN known as MPLS VPNs, which gave each customer their own private address space and routing tables, along with control over the topology of their network, all implemented on top of a single IP network.

VPNs, however, only virtualize a few resources, notably addressing and routing tables. Network virtualization as commonly understood today goes further, virtualizing every aspect of networking. That means that a virtual network today supports all the basic abstractions of a physical network - switching, routing, firewalling, load balancing - virtualizing the entire network stack from layers two through seven. In this sense, they are analogous to the virtual machine, with its support of all the abstractions of a server: CPU, storage, I/O, etc.

Like virtual machines, virtual networks are also allowing a whole set of operational advances. They can be created rapidly under programmatic control; snapshots can be taken; networks can be cloned and migrated to entirely new locations, e.g., for disaster recovery.

There's still lots of room for growth in the virtual networking space. Modern cloud operators increasingly depend on virtual networks to automate their provisioning of services. Operators of emerging 5G networks are looking at options for virtualizing their networks.

For a more in depth discussion of this topic, we refer you to this blog post, co-authored with Martin Casado, one of the pioneers of both SDN and network virtualization.
​