An enterprise is deploying a KVM-based virtualization platform for network functions. The architect must choose a networking model that allows VNFs to communicate with minimal overhead and supports VLAN trunking. Which virtual networking component should be used?
This provides VLAN trunking and low-overhead connectivity for VNFs.
Why this answer
A Linux bridge with VLAN tagging enabled on the bridge interface is the correct choice because it provides a standard Layer 2 forwarding path with native 802.1Q VLAN trunking support, allowing VNFs to communicate with minimal overhead. Unlike more complex solutions, the Linux bridge operates in kernel space with low latency and does not require additional userspace processing, making it ideal for KVM-based NFV deployments where performance and simplicity are key.
Exam trap
Cisco often tests the misconception that macvtap in bridge mode is a drop-in replacement for a Linux bridge, but it fails to support VLAN trunking because it does not expose a bridge interface for VLAN filtering on the host.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option B is wrong because macvtap in bridge mode bypasses the Linux bridge entirely and does not support VLAN trunking natively; it creates a direct connection between the VM and the physical interface, preventing the use of 802.1Q tags on the host side. Option C is wrong because Open vSwitch with DPDK, while offering maximum performance through userspace packet processing, introduces significant complexity and overhead for a scenario that only requires basic bridging and VLAN trunking, and is not necessary for minimal overhead. Option D is wrong because host-only networking with NAT isolates VNFs from the external network and does not support VLAN trunking; it is designed for private communication between VMs and the host, not for production NFV deployments requiring VLAN segmentation.