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.
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: