Gregory Ness

Are Today's Networks Turning into Yesterday's Factories?

James:

Great point. The carriers certainly have their own issues as well. Some of the SPs have watched Google assault their yellow pages revenue streams and now opportunities to monetize services.

Thx
Greg

Infrastructure 2.0 Outlook: Timing Is Everything

I think there are at least two approaches. You invest in the service providers or htose who sell equipment/solutions to them. For service providers its a question of who can deliver "real" cloud services (versus the marketing hype). This in itself is a lively discussion on tech blogs/Twitter etc. For the suppliers of gear/solutions its a matter of who you think will deliver the best solutions (the cloud switches/meash/automat... and be designed in by the service providers.

It is very messy at this point placing bets on who will win. The point of this article was to suggest that a big shift is coming and there are a set of milestones that one could follow to help guide a strategy. I think that Cisco, Arista (privately held) and VMware are hte furthest along to delivering on the promise of I2.0, but they certainly don't have it wrapped up. Citrix has been complementing their legacy middleware expertise and base with some great acquisitions and has IMHO been building a solid ecosystem. Yet I think VMware has led when it comes to enterprise go to market. They were the first to embrace the power of virtualization security, even during the early stage one virtualization deployments; and IMHO they were also faster in building relationships with the network equipment/security leaders.

That being said, the fruit of those relationships has been long time coming. I attribute to the challenges "binding" virtual and physical infrastructure and engaging network teams. When that happens (and by whom) will be IMHO all that matters.

I'm not making investment advice... but rather offering a perspective on tech trends that could be game changers. One cannot rule out Microsoft or Amazon either... because of footprint (MSFT) and business model compatability (AMZN).

All opinion.

Greg


On Oct 15 11:29 AM mws wrote:

> Mr. Ness,
>
> May I ask what you perceive to be the best way to invest in this
> "groundbreaking" technology. Are you a proponent of the "Citrix Ready
> Open Networking Program" and its partners: Ankeena, Apere, Arista,
> Dell, Fujitsu, HP, Intel, Joyent, Oracle, SoftLayer, Trend Micro
> and Vyatta?
>
> Thanks in advance for any insights you can give both myself and other
> readers.

Virtualization Demands Will Drive the Next Network Revolution

Jades:

You know... you should be paying me for these kinds of plugs tied to the column. :)

Greg

Virtualization Demands Will Drive the Next Network Revolution

Wisdom:

I think the network equipment vendors who focus on dumb pipes will face shrinking habitats and increased competition from the likes of Huawei and cloud providers. IMHO the second stage of virtualization will create more load requirements. The question would be the use of dumb versus smart beyond the enterprise network and the clouds.

G

Virtualization Demands Will Drive the Next Network Revolution

Dave:

I don't provide investment advice. Each of these companies has their own internal financial dynamics, etc which I don't track as I'm tech-foocused. I'm long VMW, SVVS, AMZN, SNDK and am watching CSCO as their UCS evolves. I'm not betting that they'll dominate but rather that as a set they'll have a disproportionate advantage based on their market positions and technology. I like SNDK because of the rise of flash memory; SVVS because of their cloud savvy and VMW because they seem to understand hte importance of the network and phase 2 virtualization. I think AMZN is also well positioned. Again, I'm looking at tech withj a 1-2 year horizon.

Thanks,
Greg

Virtualization Demands Will Drive the Next Network Revolution

Good luck! Let us know how it goes.

Thx
Greg

Will Virtualization Undermine Network Equipment Vendors?

Leit:

That's certainly a fair comment. Although I do think that VMware has done more with the network vendors than hte others in terms of grappling with the network effects of virtualization. Point well taken.

Sincerely,
Greg

Will Virtualization Undermine Network Equipment Vendors?

Phil:

I wasn't saying that the comparison was based on an identical set of impacts, but rather that in both cases the demands on the network were underestimated. If you are in the virtualization-lite camp then you perhaps won't see material demands, except perhaps related to security and vmotion (I/O) within the vLAN. Some firewalls and ids solutions might require hairpins and extra processor cycles depending upon how they're deployed. With VoIP the network challenges were discussed openly in the press... Dow, City of Houston.

Thanks for the comment
Greg


On Aug 31 08:25 PM Phil Dewey wrote:

> Comparing VOIP's impact on the network to Virtualization is not valid.
> VOIP put new, real time stresses on the network. Virtualization removes
> them from the LAN and puts them potentially on the WAN. The idea
> that there will be a valid use case for moving a VM across a wide
> distance is goofy (much less a running VM). Data will move the, VMs
> will stay where they are. Taking advantage of cheaper compute resources
> elsewhere will mean getting a COPY of a VM to materialize at the
> lowest cost facility and the data there to use it.
> One won't move a VM but rather a description of it, a formula of
> how to construct it and the data it needs to do it's job.

Will Virtualization Undermine Network Equipment Vendors?

Wisdom:

That is certainly one of the schools of thought... driven in part by the success of the VLAN. The second school shows a peak to the tactical VLAN payoff and a disruptive evolution of the network.

VoIP ultimately drove more network revenue because it increased hte demands on the gear. Very few pros considered those impacts for a variety of reasons... but then they happened.

Thanks!
Greg

Will Virtualization Undermine Network Equipment Vendors?

Thanks. I'm tempted to post the agenda for the Infrastructure 2.0 blackboard session at infra20.com to "address" some of htese comments. Let me check with the event sposnors/champions.

Thx
Greg

Will Virtualization Undermine Network Equipment Vendors?

Greg:

More than Infoblox. Addressing is a core issue... but work needs to be done with multiple players. Ultimately the network, systems and endpoints need to know each other's status on a continual basis. That's bigger than the automation of DNS/DHCP and IPAM etc as you likely know.

Thats why I think the SRI event is happening and Infoblox is a core part of the conversation. It will take a collaborative effort among multiple companies to establish connectivity intelligence in a way to build infrastructure 2.0.

This matters (the shape of this evolution) because it will impact who is relevant and strategic to virtual and hybrid infrastructure (the future of networking as we know it).

Thanks for the shameless plug opp... but I'll pass and answer that Infoblox is very relevant/strategic/nec... to this direction but not the entire solution. That is why there are several companies talking about this issue and SRI is sponsoring an event.

Stay tuned. :)
G


On Aug 31 12:49 PM Gregman2 wrote:

> So, connectivity intelligence=infoblox. Anything else?;-)

Will Virtualization Undermine Network Equipment Vendors?

Z:

There are a few more titans in the battle but I think you've identified those who could be called "strategic" (value add) versus "tactical" (cheap IT service). I think how IT evolves and how well the network embraces the virtual infrastructure may have a lot to do with who wins the most.

Interesting blog by Chris Hoff: www.rationalsurvivabil...

Thx
G

Reality Checks for the Billowing Cloud Computing Fantasy

Josh:

There are solutions that allow for desktops in the cloud. Yes, there is an OS. But the link between hardware and OS is more tenuous.

You can read the article to say that enterprise networks are not ready for private cloud because of security, management/addressing, throughput and storage issues.

You can also read the article (plus others) to say that cloud can decouple the tight relationship between the OS, hard drive and service... introducing new competition to the preload software business. With virtualization and cloud users will have more choices (both in OS and apps and services).

Thanks,
Greg

Reality Checks for the Billowing Cloud Computing Fantasy

Disappointed:

The issue is much bigger than "cloud complication." Its about risks and significant tech barriers to real enterprise adoption and the lack of preparedness for networks. Lets put it this way: if cloud isn't viable for the enterprise how viable will it be for SMB? Yes it can replace some apps (with thin apps and multi-tennant hosting); but if it isn't economical (the elastic intercloud that can follow the moon) and is really just larger VLANs with more VM density... then it won't live up to the "Big Switch" hype.

That issue may noty be that interesting to you, but its an important consideration for enterprises exploring cloud service (versus software as a service or infrastructure as a service, etc) models. And there is a sizable quantity of traditional servers powered up 24X7 (wasting energy) that could be replaced if the issues are properly addressed. If they're not, then we will go on longer wasting the energy used to power these servers while they're not be usied. According to the panel at FIRE, the amount consumed annually by those servers amounts to the entire amount produced by wind (I think it was about 5% that Gouraly mentioned).

Greg

New CIO Acronyms: DNS, DHCP, IPAM

John and anon:

About 8 years ago I was at VoiceCon with an IT director who presented a business case for enterprise VoIP deployment across about a dozen offices (I was with ShoreTel at the time). The moderator blasted the preso by saying that VoIP was a toy that would never be seriously deployed within the enterprise. He knew because he had more than a decade of experience managing legacy PBXs (he was in the mix and he knew better).

The tech world is particularly interesting because it is filled with a broad spectrum of personalities with an equally broad range of outlooks; and many of the champions of new technologies work for the companies enabling change. They vote with their feet by choosing a company, technology, team etc. They share their opinions with those who will listen.

I realize that there are plenty of techies who think the network is a dumb bus, a mere pipe. Some may even think IT isn't strategic anymore ala Mick Carr. Some will outsource their IT (they see it as a simple business case decision), others will embrace IT and transform it, carefully evaluating new technologies on a case by case basis.

Rather than lob generalizations that I only speak well of partners (F5 for example is not an Infoblox partner nor VMware, Citrix or Juniper), or practice the fine art of "gobbledygook" why not argue with the theme of my posts: that the network is strategic and will be more strategic as enterprises move to virtualization and cloud; and that network intelligence, automation and management will become more important as networks get more complex and endpoints and systems more mobile?

This came up during a panel I was on yesterday at Interop's Enterprise Cloud Summit. We talked about the downside risks of cloud (security, compliance, unplanned downtime, lock-in, etc) and many of these issues are relevant to the networking industry and how networks adapt to cloud architectures. This point will likely be made Thursday at the FIRE conference by VMware's (not a partner) Director of Operations.

BTW- I have nothing against HP; I think they're an excellent company now facing a new and more dynamic competitive landscape. I just don't see them as particularly visionary today when it comes to cloud computing, especially relative to Cisco (yes, a partner), F5 (not a partner) or Juniper (not a partner). I think Citrix (not a partner) is getting more interesting regarding the cloud.

But these are just my opinions. You can take them or leave them.

Thanks for your comments
Greg