05-20-2020 06:16 AM
When NSX-V was the focus from VMware, the ACI can coexist with NSX-V without much concern if company is so choose to. From NSX-V perspective, the ACI provides underlay fabric and VMM integration. Then NSX-V just handles the micro-seg pieces. This was easy and no departments (Cisco vs VMware) within the organization are pissed off (politically or technically)... networking people take care of routing/switch physical or virtual; vmware people takes care of VMs; security people take care of the micro-seg policies...
But now with NSX-T, this kinda coexist is not that clear, right? Especially NSX-T needs the N-DVS instead of DVS...which means there is no VMM integration in this scenario, right? So networking people take care of physical routing/switch and work with vmware people for virtual networking; vmware people takes care of VMs and N-DVS...; security people take care of the micro-seg policies...
05-20-2020 07:19 AM
05-20-2020 08:06 AM
Regarding "reason and benefits running both ACI and NSX-T at the same time", it is more political than technical from my experience...
VMware would say NSX-T is multi-tenancy capable but from my perspective it is not, or at least not the way ACI implements multi-tenancy using VRF. For example, how would NSX-T handle overlapping IP subnets between tenants? This is a typical multi-tenancy requirement The T0/T1 DR architecture in NSX wont solve this.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide