To Use or Not to Use SDN: The Pain Point is the Question

This post is also available in: Japanese

To use or not to use SDN: The pain point is the question

…….because really it’s the severity of the pain point that will make you consider it or not

During a recent meeting, a well-known cloud player challenged the idea of SDN. They believed the technology was not evolved enough and would “gain little” from its deployment.

What was their SDN rationale? The customer maintains several business units driving massive scaling needs for on-demand compute and storage. They want their network to be invisible, never impacting the application environment. Clearly, their data centers are not a place where they would take chances. At least, chances in their minds.

Not surprisingly, their pain points were a familiar refrain for their type of organization:

  • Deploying new hardware, such as moving from 1 Gig to 10 Gig, and selecting new vendors caused the consistent need for retraining, management and operational framework changes. These disruptions are frequently lead to some customers adopting a one-vendor, end-to-end approach.
  • Higher OpEx than CapEx to the point where 90% of costs are operational. Physical devices continue to drop in price, due to memory costs dropping and through higher degrees of system integration. While some call this the commoditization of hardware, capital expenses are no longer dominating the IT budget.
  • Maintaining an inherently inflexible and expensive-to-change topology. Networks have been built to be solid, stable and that means not making them easy to change. With the onset of cloud, workload management now requires varying degrees of faster network provisioning, changing the network configuration to accommodate a change in the workload environment.

Ironically, I would bet most SDN advocates would say “Hang on, those are benefits SDN should deliver.” And indeed, I am one of those advocates

If you have open SDN:

  • You will be abstracting the network operating system from the hardware, and therefore abstract applications from the network. This is common thinking with white box servers, and mirroring this level of abstraction in networking is a key step. Once you have this freedom to leverage a consistent software environment, hardware changes do not drive a ripple of management and operational issues.
  • If your hardware is abstracted, and commoditized, you can now think of new topologies that scale by adding common building blocks both to add horizontal scale– the number of racks or servers, and vertical scale, to enable aggregation of massive arrays of servers to have a line rate or near line rate path out of the data center. Building out cloud / compute resources with racks, rows and data centers full of CPUs is indeed the parallel thought that is now widely adopted.
  • You will be able to program the network, without making physical topology changes, again helping to reduce OpEx and unplanned downtime. Programmability based on ‘’gold standard’’ policies and scripts is again a common means to automate aspects of server management. Networking can move in this direction through the idea of external programming will help IT teams tackle operation pain — both costs and unplanned ‘’fat finger’’ downtime.

Whether you call these ideas SDN or open networking, it does not matter. The idea is there are real problems today that are addressable today. All companies with large data center properties need to take a look at how SDN can help them today, there is no reason to wait!

Guest Blogger Disclaimer:

The views, opinions and positions expressed within these guest posts are those of the author alone and do not represent those of SDNCentral.com and SDNCentral, LLC. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them.

Checkout more from our Guest Bloggers:

Like our Content? Join the SDNCentral Mailing List

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

About the Author

.

Steve Garrison is a networking systems veteran with nearly 20 years of technology marketing experience… More

Connect with the AuthorWebsiteLinkedIn

  1. [full disclosure: I work at a startup in the SDN space and previously led the team at Juniper defining their SDN strategy]

    Fairly impressed that you managed to get a bunch of hot-button issues into one short post.

    I totally agree that networks have become static and brittle. And in a world where everything around the network was static, that was maybe good enough. But as you point out, that is no longer the case. In that environment, the best you can do is prevent stupid from happening, which is why our industry has such a love for MOPs/SOPs, certifications, and long qualification times.

    I think it is worth acknowledging that almost all new advances start by doing exactly the same thing that legacy approaches do, and they cost more to do it (transitioning to the new thing has an associated cost). Many vendors will tend to like those transition costs (a forced refresh cycle can be a glorious thing depending on your point of view). I think it will be interesting to see which SDN strategies include migration plans that are sensible and palatable given the broader economic climate.

    Also, I think it is worth noting that SDN adoption might not necessarily be led by the typical networking folks whose beards are graying and growing. If SDN does make application-network collaboration possible, it might also usher in a new type of user, one that is closer to the app side. And that means that companies (and quota-carrying sales guys) might need to think about who they sell to differently. There will be a few Renaissance sales teams who figure this out and are able to outpace what is actually a pretty slow-moving market.

    • Great point Mike — we see similar trend — that the economic buyer isn’t necessary the traditional networking buyer — both in title and generation which has potential to shorten or lengthen sales cycles — we don’t have enough info to render an opinion on that today. What’s your experience?

  2. The customers I have talked to (at both Juniper and now Plexxi) fall into a couple of buckets:

    – Help me make sense of it all (like 90% of people)
    – Your solution doesn’t do X (the hardcore network-heads that want to talk feature equivalency)
    – Let’s get going (the visionaries, CTOs, future-lookers who get it and want to get going)

    The second group slows down deployments. Fighting for equivalency is a losing battle. These people turn sales cycles from months to quarters. As a sales guy, I would qualify the customer immediately and just move on. If it doesn’t include BGP (or insert protocol of choice), then get out of here.

    The last group is easy. The discussion is use cases, POCs, test deployments. Sales cycles are weeks to months, and it is about a small incubation effort.

    The first group is tough. It’s an education process, and depending on whether they are incrementalist (every solution starts with the previous solution plus some knob), it can go very differently.

    Where we see the most interest? The financial and cloud folks seem to be anxious to move. By the way, what’s interesting here is that the problem they are looking to solve is not necessarily the “how do I get commodity hardware” problem. They have workflow and resource fluidity problems, and they see SDN as a path.

  3. [...] To Use Or Not To Use SDN: The Pain Point Is The Question [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login


MODAL