tmmarvel 1/5/2013 | 2:03:27 AM
re: 2012 Belonged to SDN & NFV. But Will They Deliver in 2013?

I guess the here key point is "Will operators really take the plunge and replace proprietary hardware with generic Ethernet switches and generic industry-standard servers?"

A network service provider's major revenues come from 1) Layer 1/0 Private line - (Eth over)SDH/OTN/WDM/fiber, 2) Layer 2 MPLS(-TP) VPN/WAN and 3) Layer 3 IP transit service contracts. There are specialized technologies for providing these contract services. (Generic) Ethernet switches do not allow implementing any of these contract types, whether or not 'software defined' via industry-standard servers.

Where the push comes to shove is when having to answer the question: Does SDN enable providing the network contracts per above with same or better quality, but at substantially lower cost (and why would that fundamentally be the case)?

djthiede 1/5/2013 | 2:03:23 AM
re: 2012 Belonged to SDN & NFV. But Will They Deliver in 2013?

shouldn't large enterprises be consider as early adapters?

looks like native generic switches are more suitable for such enterprises than to telcos, isn't it?

looks like telcos are very conservative and it will require some time and more evidences before they will adopt such a revolution.


DCITDave 1/5/2013 | 2:03:22 AM
re: 2012 Belonged to SDN & NFV. But Will They Deliver in 2013?

Great way to sum up the issue. You have specialized gear for a reason -- there is big money associated with providing services in a predictable, redundant way with lots of reporting. Can you do this with generic hardware, better software integration and SDN as a controller? Yes or, at least, I bet we're pretty close.

If I were an SP, I don't know if I'd be the first in the pool. Specialized hardware has its place. My smartphone takes a good snapshot but my DSLR is the BEST camera. 

This reminds me of how much guff carrier Ethernet got vs. TDM in its early years. Eventually the specialized service cost too much to provide vs. the commodity service that could do all the same things as TDM.

How close are we to seeing that same thing with SDN in some applications?

tmmarvel 1/5/2013 | 2:03:20 AM
re: 2012 Belonged to SDN & NFV. But Will They Deliver in 2013?

There is an important undercurrent here however: the need for reduced latencies and jitter (as well as, for certain applications, rock solid reliability and security).

The delay variations (jitter) increase unavoidably when doing packet level switching at each node, as in case of Ethernet. Moreover, when mixing different customers/users' traffic at packet level on same shared switches, there are the everything affects everything problems hurting QoS and causing security concerns. For these reasons, circuit switching T/WDM (either in form of SDH, OTN or direct WDM) has to be used instead of packet switching (eg Ethernet VLANs etc) for latency/jitter critical applications such as networking for high frequency trading and for high quality streaming media transport.

Importantly, the need for latency/jitter minimization is becoming essential for increasingly wide range of applications, eg streaming big data realtime analytics/intelligence and interactive multimedia applications. Multi-user shared packet switching is not a good network technology for these (high revenue) applications.

That is not to say that there could not be 'commodity' hardware that can be managed via vendor-neutral open standard interface from the SP's NMS servers. However that commodity hardware needs to have advanced L1/0 capabilities underneath the packet switched protocol layers to be performance-wise competitive vs vendor-specific NMS+equipment technologies.

In particular I could see a market opportunity for (SDN-managed) pure play L2 MPLS-TP LSR product integrated with L1/0 VPN capabilities. Naturally such technology can be offered also via the IaaS model, ie, contract networks as a service.

spc_vancem 1/5/2013 | 2:03:16 AM
re: 2012 Belonged to SDN & NFV. But Will They Deliver in 2013?

Using Ethernet it is fully possible to deliver predictable latency with end-to-end jitter in the ns range. OTN and SDH is not required for this purpose.

1) Gigabit Ethernet services can be aggregated/de-aggregated into 10 Gigabit Ethernet pipes with low latency and jitter below 400 ns.

2)  Traffic can be added from gigabit client interfaces onto a 10 Gigabit Ethernet pipe, still with low predictable latency and jitter below 100 ns on the 10G.

Look to TransPacket for more details: www.transpacket.com

Hence, SDN will not inhibit services with OTN and SDH (circuit switched) type of requirement.

Sign In