Does Cisco come to mind when talking “open” in networking? Probably not, but they’re nevertheless touting an open model in optical transport. They’re also talking “disaggregation”. Is that an attempt to jump on a popular term (used by DriveNets, who beat Cisco in an AT&T core router deal)? We’ll have to dig a bit to get the answers to this one, starting with some history and Cisco’s blog on the topic.
In the history department, Cisco recently redid its Acacia acquisition deal, responding to a tiff between the two companies likely generated by Acacia’s increased perceived valuation. According to the press release, Acacia “designs and manufactures high-speed, optical interconnect technologies that allow webscale companies, service providers, and data center operators to meet the fast-growing consumer demands for data.” Likely, the Acacia deal is behind Cisco’s blog.
In that blog, Cisco touts its representation in the Telecom Infrastructure Project’s Open Optical & Packet Transport (OOPT) group, which according to its website “works on the definition of open technologies, architectures and interfaces in Optical and IP Networking.” OOPT provides a reference framework for an optical network on that site, a diagram that shows a string of elements that are in-scope for OOPT. There’s also a list of working groups, including one for disaggregated aggregation and core routers. Based on the diagrams, it seems the focus of the activity overall, including the router piece, is “mobile infrastructure”, since the chain of elements the diagram shows starts in cell sites and ends in “the Internet”.
The specific project focus of the blog is TIP Phoenix, a project to develop an optical transponder that sits at the front and back ends of the optical chain in the diagram. According to OOPT, it’s “An open white-box L0/L1 transponder that operators can deploy on top/together with their existing line systems to increase the capacity of their optical networks.” Acacia’s technology certainly fits in that mission, and of course Cisco has its own branded offerings in optical networking, notably the NCS 1004.
It’s pretty clear that all of this seems directed most at mobile infrastructure in general, and 5G buildouts in particular. Operators have expressed continued interest in white-box solutions to the 5G buildout, and some (like AT&T) are committed to them. This is important to vendors because 5G is a budgeted project for operators, and largely greenfield besides. The easiest place to introduce new technology into a network is a greenfield buildout, because nothing in place has to be written down, something that would complicate the business case. In short, 5G infrastructure could be the part of the tent that the white-box camel’s nose could most likely enter.
This is what I think is the core of Cisco’s interest in OOPT, an interest that’s two-dimensional. 5G is in fact going to create a significant additional investment (eventually) in access infrastructure, the chain of elements shown in the OOPT chart. It behooves Cisco to have something to field in that space, both for mobile 5G deployment and for 5G/FTTN mm-wave hybrids. Otherwise, they cede a big investment area to white boxes. Second, the architecture for a generalized packet-optical framework is being worked on in the OOPT, and the last thing Cisco would want is for the initiative to move forward under control of competing vendors, promoting competing ideas.
Most people who are or have been involved in any standards initiatives would say that Cisco isn’t known for submerging its own interests. Some would say they’re obstructive. An open, disaggregated, framework for packet access, aggregation, and transport would certainly not be in Cisco’s interests even if it stayed confined to mobile infrastructure. Probably, it would not. In fact, DriveNets’ win in the AT&T core might reasonably be linked to AT&T’s white-box focus for 5G, showing that white boxes can spread like a virus if you let them in.
Operators like disaggregated, open, mobile networks, and that’s clear. It may be, given AT&T’s position in white-box 5G and the fact that they designed the Distributed Disaggregated Chassis (DDC) model on which DriveNets is based, that 5G thinking primes an operator for broader white-box deployment. The spread of OOPT, then, could be a big threat to vendors like Cisco, not only in 5G infrastructure but in IP infrastructure overall.
The problem OOPT poses is that it defines 5G infrastructure from the tower to the Internet, which means that there’s an explicit edge and aggregation element to it. It’s the latter that’s important for router vendors, because while you don’t need a router on a linear path from tower to something (there’s no route alternatives to take), as soon as you hit an aggregation device you have implicit need for path selection. That makes this 5G aggregation element a right and proper router, and one with a strong packet-optical flavor. Might it then ease its way over the Internet boundary into Internet aggregation?
Operator IP networks today are most often based strongly on MPLS to create “virtual transport” routes within the IP technology framework. If you were to take packet optical and push it higher, might it take over the MPLS role? If that were to happen, might IP networks literally have the heart cut out of them? Scary stuff for a router vendor.
On the other hand, could you not take packet optical directly to the router, provide packet optical transport integration into the routers themselves? You can combine optic and routing by pushing packet down into optical transport, or by pushing optical transport up into packet/routing. The latter approach could be a heady option for that same router vendor.
We know that at least one operator (AT&T) was prepared to redo their core based on white-box disaggregated routing. We know a lot of operators are prepared to build 5G greenfield infrastructure based on white boxes, and it’s likely that the “aggregation” router could look pretty much identical to the skim layer on the Internet core. If Cisco can hold off the white-box wave at that device, they can contain the risk. If they can use Acacia technology to push an optically-capable router outward via a packet optical chain, to the tower or access edge, they could do more than contain, they could win.
A strong integrated packet optical story would make things very tough for all of Cisco’s competitors, whether they’re white-box or not. The traditional mobile infrastructure players need to fend off white boxes and open 5G. If Cisco embraces openness beyond the aggregation router, but offers a linked packet optical story outward to the tower and inward through the core, they step on a lot of toes, even those of the optical-layer players like Ciena and Infinera.
Could Cisco be biting off more than it could chew, trying this (if they really are)? Perhaps, but if you’re a giant vendor, it might be wise to turn a bunch of little problems into a big one that you have the mass to solve. Maybe they need to think even bigger. Recent stories of integrated open 5G involve a dozen or more elements. Just putting them all together is a challenge, and if Cisco takes that on, and adds in their packet optical chain and aggregation router, they could field a network architecture that answers everyone’s problems.
They’ve beaten open models before, after all.