Yesterday, I asked the question “Why is it…?” regarding a number of news items. Today, I’d like to ask another question, again framing it in the context of recent events. The question is “Why don’t we…?”
Let’s get it started with an obvious one. Network operators have been promoting the notion of “network functions virtualization” or NFV. The idea is to remove service logic from network devices and host it instead on generic servers, probably in “the cloud”. Got it? Well, here’s the question: Why don’t we hear anything about the network devices that coexist with this hosted virtual functionality? We move services off switches and routers, and put them in servers. So what happens to the switches and routers? We don’t hear about it, and no matter how important software in the network becomes, you’ll still have to push bits with network boxes.
You probably guessed the reason. It’s not that next-gen hardware isn’t important, but that it IS threatening. No matter how much vendors line up and kiss NFV babies (which they have to for the same reason politicians kiss real babies), they aren’t excited about the notion of dumbing down devices. Flight of service features would mean flight of differentiation, flight of business value, flight of profit margins, flight of big executive bonuses…you get the picture. So despite the fact that vendors offer support for NFV in an abstract sense, they don’t offer it in the sense of talking about what an NFV-compliant network box would look like.
What would it look like? The answer is probably pair of logical engines, a “policy table” and “condition/action host” in combination. Policies, consisting of condition and action components would be compiled somewhere and loaded into tables in a device. There, they’d not only forward packets but also perform other network service functions, kicking off to a hosted functional component where needed. There’s plenty of room for innovation here—in silicon to handle the policy table, in “languages” to write the conditions/actions in, and in the centralized software that manages this. But it’s not your mother’s network any more, and vendors aren’t anxious to jump out there.
Another question. Why don’t we see enterprises rushing out to deploy virtual network technology in their clouds? We’ve heard that virtual networking like Nicira’s brand is essential for the cloud. We’ve heard that it’s even the foundation of SDN. But why aren’t enterprises rushing out to deploy it?
Because they don’t need it, in the main. Virtual networking is largely valuable in scaling up the segmentation technology built into Level 2 (Ethernet) networks to separate networks in multi-tenant data centers like those that are used by cloud providers. In enterprise networks, even private clouds, there’s a good chance that separating their applications into ships-in-the-night networks isn’t the goal. You can in fact connect the applications at Level 3, but if you’re doing a lot of horizontal communication that’s putting a lot of traffic through a gateway. And who knows when you’ll be doing horizontal communications, even if you’re not now? Data integration is a big part of SOA and of worker empowerment.
Here’s a good one. We know that Cisco can benefit from cross-product symbiosis so much that they can buy companies to broaden their reach and the Street loves them for it. Why don’t we the Street and pundits praising Alcatel-Lucent for their product breadth, even asking them to add MORE and not to sell off?
Enterprises tend to value solutions. They don’t want to do (and pay for) a ton of network integration, so they tend to buy from vendors who can sell them a complete network architecture, or at least the complete product inventory for the technology area they’re currently trying to address. So if you’re a Cisco selling to enterprises, you offer business-driven solutions that integrate products. Given that you’re doing the heavy lifting in selling the customer on the deal, it makes sense to keep the products in house so you can keep all the money.
But if you’re Alcatel-Lucent, you have a buyer (the network operator) who first of all tends to be a “zone purchaser” of technology, and second a self-integrator. The first point means that network operators buy products by the area of network they install in; edge, core, etc. That means that having a product that’s NOT in that area doesn’t offer much symbiotic value in the deal. The second point means that the operator has their own vision of how things should go together, so they are less likely to value the vendor’s package. Best of breed, they say.
The net of the “Why is it” and “Why don’t we” questions is that there’s a lot of movement and opportunity under the surface. We’re an industry, and probably a global economy, that’s stuck skimming when we should be diving. That would make a good New Year’s Resolution.