We are about to step into a new age in networking, and so it’s not surprising that we have a story about a revolutionary vendor posted by SDxCentral: “DriveNets CEO Claims 65% Win Rate Against Cisco, Juniper, Nokia.” Like a lot of stories, the headline here is a bit click-baity. The actual claim says that DriveNets wins about 65% of the deals where the customer is looking for disaggregated, software-based routing. Still, even that is very interesting, and so we need to look at what it means.
The qualifier “the company lands deals about 65% of the time it competes for business with network operators considering a move away from traditional routers to a disaggregated, software-based solution running in a cloud” has two inherent pieces. First, there are operators who are looking for the combination of software/cloud/disaggregation. Second, that DriveNets is winning most of the deals for them, which means there are deals to win. There’s also a third hidden piece that I’ll get to.
I opened by saying that we are about to step into a new age of networking, and of course those of you who follow my blog know I’ve said that for some time. In a decade or less, we’ll build networks in a totally different way than we do today, to the point where even our traditional network terminology will be obsolete. If we could say that those operators looking for “a disaggregated, software-based solution running in a cloud” were doing so because they saw that future unfolding, the SDxCentral story would be a sign of true revolution, both in demand and in vendor selection. We can’t say that, or at least I can’t, because it’s not true.
Operators are trying to reduce cost, which they propose to do in part by moving to a more modern, open, architecture for routers. DriveNets is the practical market leader in “cluster-router” technology, which creates a kind of mini-cloud of white boxes and software that function as one or more router instances. Their strategy is (according to operators who have looked at and in some cases adopted in trials or networks) somewhere between 32% and 47% less expensive in TCO terms. You don’t have to think too hard to see that kind of savings would appeal to operators who had decided they were willing to look beyond the traditional router model. These operators, I know from my own interactions, are not seeing the future change that should be driving their planning. They’re working to invest less in the old network architecture using new router architectures.
Reducing cost is a smart move, and a move to open-model networking at the hardware level, which is what DriveNets offers, is a good way to reduce costs, providing that you can replace enough devices to make a real difference and overcome the normal risks of mixing vendors in a closely integrated network. When operators are looking for that disaggregated-cloud approach, that’s what they are typically doing. The architecture of the devices are optimized for lower cost, but the network architecture remains the same.
It’s time for that hidden truth now. DriveNets is winning about two-thirds of the deals, which means they’re not winning a third. Remember, these are operators who want “a disaggregated, software-based solution running in a cloud”, which is fairly well wired for DriveNets’ cluster architecture. Cisco and Juniper don’t claim that approach, which means that if DriveNets isn’t beating them on a third of the deals, those legacy vendors have been able to reverse that original requirement. In most cases, so I’m finding, this is accomplished by a combination of discounting and playing on the value of incumbency.
Why, if there is a new network coming, isn’t that fact and the requirements this new network will present driving the deals? “A disaggregated, software-based solution running in a cloud” is an attribute of how a router is built, not how it’s used. Could the requirements of the new network drive sales success better for any of the three vendors mentioned?
By this point, you’re probably ready to hear what the “new network” looks like, so let me reprise what I’ve said in detail in past blogs. Service intelligence cannot be hosted easily any deeper than the metro point. There are too many access edges to mesh to create a low-latency network, but you could mesh metro points with a practical number of fiber links. Therefore, the key point in the network of the future is the metro. Metro-centric networking, which combines access aggregation, transit meshing, and local hosted-feature integration, is the foundation of the new network.
Two of the three vendors in the article, DriveNets and Juniper, have at least demonstrated a recognition of the future value of metro. Both have a “metro strategy” and metro aspirations, and both companies have credible metro elements to sell. But do they have a “new network” strategy? Not yet, and that illustrates a failing in our network marketplace and a major opportunity.
Network operators for decades have sung variations on one theme: “I build networks from what people sell me, not build products to suit my sense of the future of networks.” Vendors are really the ones who drive strategic shifts in network technology, and they do it by looking ahead to the opportunities that will determine their own success, creating technology to harness them, and promoting that vision to the operators. We do have some vendors looking ahead, we do have some technology preparation for what they see, but we have only limited promotion of the vision, and no specific technology to support a commitment to the new-network model.
DriveNets’ cluster router model offers a “modular metro” capability, and their software-centric approach is similar enough to cloud computing that third parties could develop elements for it, and DriveNets itself could enhance it. Their clusters could be physically large enough to serve a modest metro area, and it would seem that they might be able to come up with a way of building a larger cluster. Clusters can be partitioned into separate instances, which means that multiple missions within an area could be served with what looked like independent routers.
Juniper has a traditional hardware model, but they have a very strong data center offering in Apstra and a very strong virtual-network model in Contrail. Their Mist AI and Paragon automation offer the potential for service and metro infrastructure management at a higher level of efficiency, and business services could be integrated with their Session-Smart Routing (128 Technology) SD-WAN and virtual network tools too. Not to mention, of course, that they’re a big incumbent in the space, a public company with deep pockets, and naturally credible.
Right now, both companies are in striking distance of a new network role. Competitor Cisco, as always, is “fast-following”, and so given that there’s nobody to follow specifically into the new-network world, their positioning is the least defined. Could they pull together the technology to play? Surely, but they just turned in a nice quarter, their stock was positively impacted, and there’s no hurry for them to cast out the current model of networking when they’re winning with it.
The new-network issue isn’t the Lone Ranger, as they used to say. Many tech advances are hampered by fears by vendors that something new will “overhang” current sales. The theory is that buyers faced with innovation will slow their purchases until they come to terms with the new paradigm and are sure their current purchases fit, or can be fit, with it. In many cases, the same thing could be accomplished by telling buyers what the new paradigm is and how they’re going to get there, but that may be the challenge of the new network.
Can they get there? Is a metro-centric approach to network-building, one that deploys a lot of big metro routers but downplays routers elsewhere, going to be seen as a place that network vendors might want their customers to go? It should be, in the balance, revenue-positive for the industry because we could end up deploying a hundred thousand metro routers, but the impact on the rest of the product line would be harder to assess, and the competitive impact harder still. Apstra, for example, gives Juniper a very strong “universal data center network” strategy; would Cisco see metro as promoting that, and therefore promoting Juniper?
Any of the three vendors could create this new-network architecture, and from it add (or acquire or partner for) new products and pieces that would make it compelling. DriveNets’ real advantage may be that they have less to lose in a revolution than Cisco or Juniper, but in the end all three face the same risk, which is that a disorderly stumble into the future will hamper operators’ ability to invest quickly and decisively. If a rising tide lifts all boats, a falling one obviously does the opposite.