Standards approach or Open Source?

Extracted from SDN / NFV in wireless networks.

[...] Over the last few years, wireless networks have started to adopt enterprise technologies and trends. One of these trends is the open source collaborative model, where, instead of creating a set of documents to standardize a technology and leave vendors to implement their interpretation, a collective of vendors, operators and independent developers create source code that can be augmented by all participants.

Originally started with the Linux operating system, the open source development model allows anyone to contribute, use, and modify source code that has been released by the community for free.

The idea is that a meritocratic model emerges, where feature development and overall technology direction are the result of the community’s interest. Developer and companies gain influence by contributing, in the form of source code, blueprints, documentation, code review and bug fixes.

This model has proven beneficial in many case for the creation of large software environments ranging from operating system (Linux), HTTP servers (Apache) or big data (Hadoop) that have been adapted by many vendors and operators for their benefit.

The model provides the capacity for the creation and adoption of new technologies without having necessarily a large in-house developer group in a cost effective manner.

On the other hand, many companies find that the best-effort collaborative environment is not necessarily the most efficient model when the group of contributors come from very different background and business verticals.

While generic server operating system, database technology or HTTP servers have progressed rapidly and efficiently from the open source model, it is mostly due to the fact that these are building block elements designed to do only a fairly limited set of things.

SDN and NFV are fairly early in their development for mobile networks but one can already see that the level of complexity and specificity of the mobile environment does not lend itself easily to the adoption of generic IT technology without heavy customization.

In 2016, open source has become a very trendy buzzword in wireless but the reality shows that the ecosystem is still trying to understand and harness the model for its purposes. Wireless network operators have been used to collaborating in fairly rigid and orthodox environments such as ETSI and 3GPP. These standardization bodies have been derided lately as slow and creating sets of documentations that were ineffective but they have been responsible for the roll out of 4 generations of wireless networks and the interoperability of billions of devices, in hundreds of networks with thousands of vendors.

Open source is seen by many as a means to accelerate technology invention with its rapid iteration process and its low documentation footprint. Additionally, it produces actual code, that is pre tested and integrated, leaving little space for ambiguity as to its intent or performance. It creates a very handy level playing field to start building new products and services.

The problem, though is that many operators and vendors still treat open source in wireless as they did the standards, expecting a handful of contributing companies to do the heavy lifting of the strategy, design and coding and placing change requests and reviews after the fact. This strategy is unlikely to succeed, though. The companies and developers involved in open source coding are in for their benefit. Of course they are glad to contribute to a greater ecosystem by creating a common denominator layer of functional capabilities, but they are busy in parallel augmenting the mainline code with their customization and enhancements to market their products and services.

One of the additional issues with open source in wireless for SDN and NFV is that there is actually very little that is designed specifically for wireless. SDN, OpenStack, VMWare, OpenFlow… are mostly defined for general IT and you are more likely to find an insurance a bank or a media company at OpenStack forums than a wireless operator. The consequence is that while network operators can benefit from implementation of SDN or OpenStack in their wireless networks, the technology has not been designed for telco grade applicability and the chance of it evolving this way are slim without a critical mass of wireless oriented contributors. Huawei, ALU, Ericsson are all very present in these forums and are indeed contributing greatly but I would not rely on them too heavily to introduce the features necessary to ensure vendor agnosticism...

The point here is that being only a customer of open source code is not going to result in the creation of any added value without actual development. Mobile network operators and vendors that are on the fence regarding open source movements need to understand that this is not a spectator sport and active involvement is necessary if they want to derive differentiation over time.

SDN-NFV in wireless 2015/2016 is released

As previously announced, I have been working on my new report "SDN-NFV in wireless 2015/2016" and I happy to announce its release.

The report features primary and secondary research on the state of SDN and NFV standards and open source, together with an analysis of the most advanced network operators and solutions vendors in the space.

You can download the table of contents here.

Released September 2015
130 pages

• Operators strategy and deployments review: AT&T, China Unicom, Deutsche Telekom, EE, Telecom Italy, Telefonica, ...

• Vendors strategy and roadmap review: Affirmed networks, ALU, Cisco, Ericsson, F5, HP, Huawei, Intel, Juniper, Oracle, Red Hat...

• Drivers for SDN and NFV in telecom networks 
• Public, private, hybrid, specialized clouds 
• Review of SDN and NFV standards and open source initiatives
• SDN 
• Service chaining
• Apache CloudStack, Microsoft Cloud OS, Red Hat, Citrix CloudPlatform, OpenStack, VMWare vCloud, 
• SDN controllers (OpenDaylight, ONOS) 
• SDN protocols (OpenFlow, NETCONF, ForCES, YANG...)
• NFV 
• ETSI ISG NFV 
• OPNFV 
• OpenMANO 
• NFVRG 
• MEF LSO 
• Hypervisors: VMWare vs. KVM, vs Containers
• How does it all fit together? 
• Core and RAN networks NFV roadmap

Terms and conditions: message me at patrick.lopez@coreanalysis.ca

Announcing SDN / NFV in wireless 2015

On the heels of my presentation at the NFV world congress in San Diego this spring, my presentation and panels at LTE world summit on network visualization and my anticipated participation at SDN & OpenFlow world Summit in the fall, I am happy to announce production for "SDN / NFV in wireless networks 2015".

This report, to be released in September, will feature my review of the progress of SDN and NFV as technologies transitioning from PoC to commercial trials and limited deployments in wireless networks.

The report provides a step by step strategy for introducing SDN and NFV in your product and services development.

• Drivers for SDN and NFV in telecom networks 
• Public, private, hybrid, specialized clouds 
• Review of SDN and NFV standards and open source initiatives
• SDN 
• Service chaining
• Apache CloudStack, Microsoft Cloud OS, Red Hat, Citrix CloudPlatform, OpenStack,  VMWare vCloud, 
• SDN controllers (OpenDaylight, ONOS) 
• SDN protocols (OpenFlow, NETCONF, ForCES, YANG...)
• NFV 
• ETSI ISG NFV 
• OPNFV 
• OpenMANO 
• NFVRG 
• MEF LSO 
• Hypervisors: VMWare vs. KVM, vs Containers
• How does it all fit together? 
• Core and RAN networks NFV roadmap
• Operators strategy and deployments review: AT&T, China Unicom, Deutsche Telekom, EE, Telecom Italy, Telefonica, Verizon...
• Vendors strategy and roadmap review: Affirmed networks, ALU, Cisco, Ericsson, F5, HP, Huawei, Intel, Juniper, Oracle, Red Hat... 

Can't wait for the report? Want more in-depth and personalized training? A 5 hours workshop and strategy session is available now to answer your specific questions and help you chart your product and services roadmap, while understanding your competitors' strategy and progress.

The future is cloudy: NFV 2020 part II

I have received some comments after my previous post arguing that maybe the future of SDN and NFV is not as far as I am predicting. As we are all basking in the pre Mobile World Congress excitement, inundated by announcements from vendors and operators alike trying to catch the limelight before the deafening week begins, I thought I would clarify some of my thoughts.

We have seen already this week some announcements of virtualization plans, products and even deployments.

One of the main problems with a revolutionary approach such SDN and/or NFV implementation is that it suggests a complete network overhaul to deliver its full benefits. In all likeliness, no network operator is able to operate fully these kind of changes in less than a 10 years' timescale, so what to do first?

The choice is difficult, since there are a few use cases that seem easy enough to roll out but deliver little short term benefits (vCPE, some routing and switching functions...) while the projects that should deliver the highest savings, the meaty ones, seem quite far from maturity (EPC, IMS, c-RAN...). Any investment on this front is going to be just that...an investment with little to no return in the short term.

The problem is particularly difficult to solve because most of the value associated with virtualization of mobile networks in the short term is supposedly ties to capex and opex savings. I have previously highlighted this trend and it is not abating, more like accelerating.

Islands of SDN or NFV implementations in a sea of legacy network elements is not going to generate much saving. It could arguably generate new revenue streams if these were used to launch new services, but today’s focus has been so far to emulate and translate physical function and networks into virtualized ones, with little effort in term of new service creation.

As a result, the business case to deploy SDN or NFV in a commercial network today is negative and likely to stay so for the next few years. I expect the momentum to continue, though, since it will have to work and to deliver the expected savings for network operators to stand a chance to stay in business.

The other side of this coin is the service offering.  While flexibility, time to market and capacity to launch new services are always quoted as some of the benefits of network virtualization, it seems that many operators have given up on innovation and service creation. The examples of new services are few and far between and I would hope that these would be the object of more focused efforts.

At last, it seems that maybe one of my previsions will be fulfilled shortly, a friend pointed out that this year's GSMA freebee for its member at the show will be... a selfie stick.

Report from SDN / NFV shows part I

Wow! last week was a busy week for everything SDN / NFV, particularly in wireless. My in-depth analysis of the segment is captured in my report. Here are a few thoughts on the last news.

First, as is now almost traditional, a third white paper was released by network operators on Network Functions Virtualizations. Notably, the original group of 13 who co-wrote the first manifesto that spurred the creation of ETSI ISG NFV has now grown to 30. The Industry Specification Group now counts 235 companies (including yours truly) and has seen 25 Proof of Concepts initiated. In short the white paper announces another 2 year term of effort beyond the initial timeframe. This new phase will focus on multi-vendor orchestration operability, and integration with legacy OSS/BSS functions.

MANO (orchestration) remains a point of contention and many start to recognise the growing threat and opportunity the function represents. Some operators (like Telefonica) seem actually to have reached the same conclusions as I in this blog and are starting to look deeply into what implementing MANO means for the ecosystem.

I will go today a step further. I believe that MANO in NFV has the potential to evolve the same way as the app stores in wireless. It is probably an apt comparison. Both are used to safekeep, reference, inventory, manage the propagation and lifecycle of software instances.

In both cases, the referencing of the apps/VNF  is a manual process, with arbitrary rules that can lead to dominant position if not caught early. It would be relatively easy, in this nascent market to have an orchestrator integrate as many VNFs as possible, with some "extensions" to lock-in this segment like Apple and Google did with mobiles.

I know, "Open" is the new "Organic", but for me, there is a clear need to maybe create an open source MANO project, lets call it "OpenHand"?

You can view below a mash-up of the presentations I gave at the show last week and the SDN & NFV USA in Dallas the week before below.



More notes on these past few weeks soon. Stay tuned.

NFV & SDN part III: mobile video

I have spent the last couple of months with some of the most brilliant technologists and strategists working on the latest networking technologies, standards and code.

Cloud, SDN, NFV, OpenStack, network virtualization, opendaylight, orchestration...

Everyone looks at making networks more programmable, agile, elastic, intelligent. Some of the sought benefits are faster time to market for new services, lower cost of operation, new revenue from new services, simpler network operation and service orchestration... This is very much about making IT more flexible and cost efficient.

Telcos, wireless vendors and operators are gravitating towards these organizations, hoping to benefit from these progress and implement them in wireless networks.

Here is what I don't quite get:

Mobile is the fastest growing ICT in the world (30% CAGR). Video is the largest (>50% of data volume) and fastest growing service in mobile (75% CAGR). 

Little, if any, of the working groups or organizations I have followed so far have dedicated telco (let alone wireless) working groups and none seem to address the need for next generation video delivery networks.

I am not half as smart as many of the engineers, technologist and strategist contributing to these organizations so I am missing something. Granted, in most cases, these efforts are fairly recent, maybe they haven't gotten to video services yet? It strikes me, though that no one speaks of creating better mobile video networks.

If wireless video is the largest, fastest growing consumer service in the world, shouldn't we, as an industry, look at improving it? A week doesn't go by where a study shows that wireless video streaming demand is increasing and that quality of experience is insufficient.

I am afraid that, as an industry, we are confusing means and goals. Creating better generic networks, using more generic hardware, interfaces and protocols to reduce costs of operation and simplify administration is a noble ambition, but it does not in itself guarantee cost reduction and even less new services. What I have seen so far are more complex network topology with layer upon layer of hierarchical abstraction sure to keep specialized vendors busy and rich for the decades to come.

In parallel, we are seeing opposite moves made by the like of Google, Netflix, Apple, or Facebook. When it comes to launching new services, it doesn't feel that these companies are looking first at network architecture, costs savings, service orchestration, interfaces... I am sure that it gets addressed at some point in the process, but it looks like it starts with the customer. What is the value proposition, what is the service, what is the experience, how will it be charged, who will pay...

Comparing these two processes might be unfair, I agree, but if you are a mobile network operator today, shouldn't you focus your energy on what is the largest and fastest growing service on your network, which happens to not be profitable? 
85% of the video traffic is OTT and you get little revenue from that. You are struggling to deliver an acceptable video quality for a service that is growing and uses already the majority of your resources and you have no plan to improve it. 
Why aren't we looking as an industry at creating a better wireless video network? Start from there and look at what could be the best architecture, interfaces, protocols... I bet the result could be different from our current endeavors. 
None of the above mentioned technology have been designed specifically for video. Of course it is generic networking, so video can be part of it, but I doubt it will be able to deliver the best mobile video experience if not baked-in at the design and architectural phase. Then, if these are not the venue for it, what is?

I am not advocating against SDN, NFV, OpenStack, etc... but I would hope that sooner rather than later, wireless and video specific focus are brought to bear in these organisations. It wouldn't feel right if we found out down the line that we created a great networking framework that is great for IT enterprise but not so good for the most important consumer service. Just saying... 

NFV & SDN part I

In their eternal quest to reduce CAPEX, mobile network operators have been egging on telecom infrastructure manufacturers to adopt more open, cost effective computing capabilities.

You will remember close to 15 years ago when all telecom platforms had to be delivered on hardened SUN Solaris SPARC NEBS certified with full fledged Oracle database to be "telecom grade". Little by little, x86 platforms, MySQL databases and Linux OS have penetrated the ecosystem. It was originally a vendor-driven initiative to reduce their third party cost. The cost reduction was passed on to MNOs who were willing to risk implementing these new platforms. We have seen their implementation grow from  greenfield operators in emerging countries, to mature markets first at the periphery of the network, slowing making their way to business-critical infrastructure.

We are seeing today an analogous push to reduce costs further and ban proprietary hardware implementations with NFV. Pushed initially by operators, this initiative sees most network functions first transiting from hardware to software, then being run on virtualized environments on off-the-shelf hardware.

The first companies to embrace NFV have been "startup" like Affirmed Networks. First met with scepticism, the  company seems to have been able to design from scratch and deploy commercially a virtualized Evolved Packet Core in only 4 years. It certainly helps that the company was founded to the tune of over 100 millions dollars from big names such as T-Ventures and Vodafone, providing not only founding but presumably the lab capacity at their parent companies to test and fine tune the new technology.

Since then, vendors have started embracing the trend and are moving more or less enthusiastically towards virtualization of their offering. We have seen emerging different approaches, from the simple porting of their software to Xen or VMWare virtualized environments to more achieved openstack / openflow platforms.

I am actively investigating the field and I have to say some vendors' strategies are head scratching. In some cases, moving to a virtualized environment is counter-productive. Some telecom products are highly CPU intensive / specialized and require dedicated resource to attain high performance, scalability in a cost effective package. Deep packet inspection, video processing seem to be good examples. Even those vendors who have virtualized their appliance / solution when pushed will admit that virtualization will come at a performance cost at the state of the technology today.

I have been reading the specs (openflow, openstack) and I have to admit they seem far from the level of detail that we usually see in telco specs to be usable. A lot of abstraction, dedicated to redefining switching, not much in term of call flow, datagram, semantics, service definition, etc...

How the hell does one go about launching a service in a multivendor environment? Well, one doesn't. There is a reason why most NFV initiative are still at the plumbing level, investigating SDN, SDDC, etc... Or single vendor / single service approach. I haven't been convinced yet by anyone's implementation of multi vendor management, let alone "service orchestration". We are witnessing today islands of service virtualization in hybrid environments. We are still far from function virtualization per se.

The challenges are multiple: 

• Which is better?: A dedicated platform with low footprint / power requirement that might be expensive and centralized or thousand of virtual instances occupying hundreds of servers that might be cheap (COTS) individually but collectively not very cost or power efficient?
• Will network operator trade Capex for Opex when they need to manage thousand of applications running virtually on IT platforms? How will their personnel trained to troubleshoot problems following the traffic and signalling path will adapt to this fluid non-descript environment? 

We are still early in this game, but many vendors are starting to purposefully position themselves in this space to capture the next wave of revenue. 

Will the lack of a programmable multi vendor control environment force network operators to ultimately be virtualized themselves, relinquishing network management to the large IT and telecom equipment manufacturers? This is one of the questions I will attempt to answer going forward as I investigate in depth the state of the technology and compare it with the vendors and MNOs claims and assertions.

Stay tuned, more to come with a report on the technology, market trends and vendors capabilities in this space later on this year.