SDxCentral
Join Log In
SD-WAN 4 5G 17 Edge 7 IoT 14 SDN 9 NFV 10 Containers 2 Cloud 15 Security 5 AI 8 Data Center Storage 1 APM/NPM 1 Open Source

Log In to SDxCentral

Log in with your email? Forgot your password?
  • Newsletters
  • eBriefs
  • Podcasts
  • Webinars
  • Videos
  • Directory
  • White Papers
  • Resources
  • Use Cases
  • Support

Join SDxCentral and get information tailored to your particular interests everyday.

Join
Sponsored:
Dell EMC 8 Citrix Riverbed

What Went Wrong On Our (Too) Long Journey to Open Networks?

What Went Wrong On Our (Too) Long Journey to Open Networks?
Andreas Hegers November 7, 2016
8:31 am MT

In 2012, an executive who worked for one of the largest European service providers shared his dream with the attendees of Layer123’s first software-defined networking (SDN) & OpenFlow World Congress in Darmstadt, Germany. According to him, the reason for all the misery in carrier-land were not permanent price battles, flat-rates, and cut-through competition; it was us, the vendors. We were accused of only offering hardware that was too expensive and wasn’t interoperable forcing carriers to pay much more than necessary. The audience was impressed — especially when we were asked to collaborate, define common interfaces, agree on one communication language, and offer open, fully programmable boxes based on standard industry architectures to drive his cost down as much as possible. For the majority of the audience, this might have been the first time when they were confronted with the realities of the new, open world. Since then, the world keeps on changing, but for some reason, both carriers and (most) vendors are still alive. But OpenFlow, the savior of that day, is virtually dead. What went wrong?

Well, quite a bit. It took a while, but people close to the matter realized that even after several massive iterations, OpenFlow would never be powerful enough for managing a dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM) system, let alone something as complex as a packet-optical transport system (P-OTS) or an optical transport network (OTN) switch. This didn’t stop some vendors from claiming that their transport solutions are fully compatible with this not so powerful language, so a lot of confusion was injected into our industry, but in reality it never worked. The idea of one powerful controller, to control all network items, only worked in theory since it would hamper operations substantially due to the readily available computing power and lack of common standards. Over time, the dream of one language, one central controller, and flat, programmable networks became a playing field for marketing departments and clueless journalists. SDN, announced as the new messiah, went down from being the Holy Grail to become the next version of network management systems (NMS). Element management systems (EMS’s) are called Domain Controllers, NMS’s are Parent Controllers and Umbrella Network Managements (remember those?) are called orchestrators.

Meanwhile, network functions virtualization (NFV) had entered the stage, and with it several competing “open” standards, which (you’ve guessed it) don’t interwork. And management and orchestration (MANO) was introduced as an alternative sort-of NMS for the NFV world, of course alongside the above mentioned SDN crowd. And even the formerly well-organized and well-tranched operations support systems (OSS)/business support systems (BSS) layer is whirled around with lifecycle service orchestration (LSO) initiatives. The lowest common denominator appears to be YANG and (not YING) network configuration protocol (NETCONF). As long as a vendor shows those magic terms in the middle of his overloaded network-diagrams, operators have at least a glimmer of hope that some fine day someone will offer them a good solution for evolving their networks going forward. So what went wrong?

Well, a bit. The biggest mistake we as an industry made was starting the network-revolution at box level. Remember the structure of networks? The higher up you go, the more unified they become. That’s what Northbound interfaces are made for, and even 20 years ago, those were sort of standardized. The further down you go, the more proprietary all solutions become. All network vendors are using different languages for communicating with their boxes, and the way packet networks are managed can’t be applied to transport networks. Maybe someday, but not today. Something like a simple network management protocol (SNMP) never made it to the optical camp, for the same reason why OpenFlow got stuck — physics are complex, and this was ignored completely.

So where’s the way out? We might have already found it, it’s just not as nice as some people want it to be. Packet networks were always more uniform and closer to the well standardized IT environment of data centers, and some of their nodes actually talk OpenFlow. Optical transport networks can be managed via domain controllers, and YING and YANG will do the rest. Are there real benefits? Yes, as soon as we manage to bring the right capabilities to the parent controllers, as soon as they will start talking to orchestrators that control data centers as well, innovative end-end services can be defined and turned up faster than ever, networks can be optimized in a way that was never there before, and automation will take control to improve operations. It just takes another few years, but how long did it take to get the first plain old telephony system (POTS) network up and running, after Mr. Bell had invented the telephone?

Related Articles

Turkcell Launches Largest Virtualized Mobile Network In the Middle East
Turkcell Launches Largest Virtualized Mobile Network In EMEA Region
Telefónica Validates Wind River’s Cloud Platform for its Unica Project
Telefónica Validates Wind River’s Cloud Platform for its Unica Project
ZTE-Rises-Above-Political-Woes-With-Core-5G-Network-Claim
ZTE Rises Above Political Woes With Core 5G Network Claim
InterDigital Solves Mobile 5G Problems Far in Advance of Standards
InterDigital Solves Mobile 5G Problems Far in Advance of Standards
eBrief: NFV Reality Check
eBrief: NFV Reality Check - How is NFV Being Implemented Today?
CenturyLink Dove Into NFV Early Because of a Profitable Business Case
CenturyLink Dove Into NFV Early Because of a Profitable Business Case
SDxCentral Daily News

Join your Peers! Subscribe to SDxCentral's Newsletter

Article Tags:

Contributed Articles MANO/LSO NFV OpenFlow SDN

Subscribe to Get the Daily News!

About SDxCentral

  • Newsletters
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Work With Us
  • Editorial Team
  • Careers
  • Legal
  • Support

Engage With us

This material may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose except with express written permission from an authorized representative of SDxCentral, LLC. In addition to such written permission to copy, reproduce, or modify this document in whole or part, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced. All Rights Reserved.

© 2012-2019 SDxCentral, LLC, All Rights Reserved. SDNCentral™, the SDNCentral logo, SDxCentral™, SDxCentral logo, SDxNews™, SDxTech™, SDx™, the SDx logo, and DemoFriday™ are trademarks of SDxCentral, LLC in the U.S. and other countries.

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy