Page 1 / 2   >   >>
ASX4000 11/8/2016 | 8:34:24 AM
Re: Just a Thought. For sure they'll need a Scrum master as well :)
vances 11/7/2016 | 9:53:49 PM
Transactional vs Instance Licensing Instance based licensing is actually a great improvement over the entrenched practice of licensing based on Transaction Per Second (TPS) metrics which is the norm with messaging applications (e.g. SMSC).  That is appliance thinking which has to change.  Instance based licensing is a much more realistic way to handle compensation for pure software applications.

  Transactional Licensing is a Legacy of Appliances

Also it should be understood that license agreements and license controls are independent issues.  I would advocate a control free license scheme for VNFs as I wouldn't expect a great deal of non-compliance from CSPs.
brooks7 11/7/2016 | 5:01:51 PM
Re: Just a Thought. Carol,

If the issue is the dynamic setup and tear down of NFV functions, then about the only answer is to go where AWS has.  Make the windows for licenses smaller.  Have a license server count number of intervals that are used and bill that way.  Let's call it 1 hour.  So each hour an instance is turned up (whether that is for 5 minutes or the full hour) the hourly billing rate is billed for.  That way the bill matches the use.


clarkede 11/7/2016 | 4:25:48 PM
ETSI NFV has started addressing NFV License Management As pointed out in Light Reading a couple of weeks ago (quoting comments I made at the Broadband World Forum in London), ETSI NFV has started a specification work item on this with support from BT, Verizon, CableLabs and others. We are setting an aggressive timescale for getting consensus on 'Requirements', that is what mechanisms need to be supported by NFV MANO in order to be able to implement any commercial license management framework at the OSS/BSS level. We'll be working with TMF and others to ensure industry alignment. The next step will be to actually specify the MANO mechanisms with a target completion date of mid-2017. Don Clarke - ETSI NFV Network Operator Council Chair.
Carol Wilson 11/7/2016 | 3:41:31 PM
Re: Just a Thought. I asked multiple people at this event if there was another model other than the licensing one that Neil McRae disparaged, and most folks agreed there needs to be some kind of change, but they aren't sure what it's going to be. 

I'm going to be digging deeper into this to get more answers from vendors and operators alike. 

brooks7 11/7/2016 | 2:30:45 PM
Re: Just a Thought. Yeah Lawyers are big on agreements that change over time in ways managed by the participants :)


Virtual_Robert 11/7/2016 | 1:14:45 PM
Just a Thought. Maybe we should get Procurement, Finance, Legal reps on both sides involved in a DevOps style to design a commercial engagement model in an agile way.

danielcawrey 11/7/2016 | 12:20:25 PM
Re: The obvious It sure makes you think about how NFV is going to lower costs when there are so many licensing implciations to think about. 

Even so, I remain optimistic. NFV is going to be a big part of networking going forward, so vendors will have no choice but to figure this out. 
brooks7 11/7/2016 | 12:13:36 PM
Re: NFV business model challenge  


I think the challenge is that people are trying to think about building things the way they always have and not look to IT for many of the answers.

Let me take your troubleshooting example.  I think it is important that the applications become self-monitoring.  It is essentially impossible for 3rd party gear to do much other than provide platforms for application work.  When I was working as a SaaS vendor our applications would register themselves with our NOC when they started and deregister when they were stopped.  The NOC pinged the elements for sanity, but beyond that all the performance monitoring and problem reporting was done locally and escalated to the NOC.  The troubleshooting has to be part of the application or it won't exist when a new one is spawned.  All of this has to be part of the turnup/turndown automation without human intervention.  And yes, even with all of that it can still be painful.

Kevin Mitchell 11/7/2016 | 11:33:27 AM
NFV business model challenge Traditional infrastructure vendors have revenue to protect. How motivated can they be to be disruptive and transformative when it comes to cost? Marginal cost reductions are quite possible when it comes to CAPEX, but will they provide break-through economics? We doubt it.

Beyond the operational (and procurement) complexity of managing X number of vendors' licenses (and I suspect it's more vendors than they have for today's version of that network), the other challenges include:
  • Business model is same-old same-old and not transformative: CAPEX + fixed OPEX for a speculative build (Read more http://www.alianza.com/call-to-the-cloud/nfv-is-necessary-but-not-sufficient)
  • Support/troubleshooting is a nightmare (see The New IP Agency article http://www.newipagency.com/author.asp?section_id=323&doc_id=713548)

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In