mendyk 5/23/2017 | 2:42:01 PM
Re: MANO risks becoming the lock-in that operators feared Ask anybody I've worked with -- it's rarely worse than I think. But point taken. I agree that for CSPs, interoperability seems quixotic. But it's a goal that has sustained for decades, and as you say, it's not something that CSPs seem to care much about based on their actions.
brooks7 5/23/2017 | 2:32:21 PM
Re: MANO risks becoming the lock-in that operators feared Dennis,

I think its worse than you think.  (and I thank sj0350 for saying what I have been saying for a couple of years here).  I think Interoperability is a waste of time.  They have essentially taken that out of the current network by their own behavior.  So, the only point of it is to avoid vendor lock-in on a specific component.  Then they go off and essentially single source things and drive second vendors out of business (winner take all RFPs with no reselection after a few years).

mendyk 5/23/2017 | 11:21:34 AM
Re: MANO risks becoming the lock-in that operators feared Good post, sj. Things would have gone more smoothly if CSPs prioritized their long-term goals. The first goal would have been to virtualize their systems. The second goal -- following after significant progress was made in achieving Goal 1 -- would have been for interoperability. Trying to achieve both simultaneously has resulted in the current perceived stagnation.
sj0350 5/23/2017 | 10:46:18 AM
MANO risks becoming the lock-in that operators feared I disagree that it's somehow the standards bodies' fault.  The web scale players do just fine without getting wrapped around that axle, fundamentally because they are culturally agile enough to take what they need and build the rest themselves.  

Carriers like AT&T are doing their best to replicate this with ECOMP/ONAP, but they are currently exposed to the risk of the market choosing an alternative like OSM, leaving them high and dry with a special system that only they use.  (Which would make every vendor charge them more...sort of defeating the purpose of NFV.)

It's going to come down to numbers now.  If the major carriers coalesce quickly around one platform, the others will fall away and community engagement will increase.  It does not have to be a "RFC"-type standard at this point, because momentum trumps standards.  

The worst possible outcome is that Verizon stay in one camp, AT&T in another, DT in a third, and so on.  If (say) Verizon and DT joined ONAP, or AT&T and China Mobile joined OSM, we would be done and things would really get moving.