Welcome!

SDN Journal Authors: Elizabeth White, Yeshim Deniz, Liz McMillan, Pat Romanski, TJ Randall

Blog Feed Post

Network cost and complexity: As simple as changing the y-intercept?

In a previous post, I wrote about the incremental nature of innovation, particularly in the networking space. My point was that innovation (both from a product and a deployment perspective) occurs from a frame of reference. Understanding that foundation is critical to determining strategies, especially around go-to-market and adoption.

From a network user perspective, the incremental nature of architectural evolution means that users are far more likely to adopt something that they can identify with. To the extent that new capabilities can be framed up relative to existing deployments, migrations are easier. This is actually a healthy dynamic as it creates a bit of architectural longevity. Indeed, it would be incredibly difficult to operate in an environment that is perpetually in flux.

What triggers architectural change?

But architectural changes do happen. Understanding why can be helpful in planning for them, and ultimately for evaluating what to migrate to.

I’ll make the assertion here that cost and complexity are at least correlated (if not causal). As complexity increases, the cost of managing that complexity also increases. Complexity drivers can be as simple as the number of devices in a deployment, the ease with which those devices are connected, or even the sophistication required to perform activities like traffic engineering. Whatever the cause of complexity, as it goes up, there is a correlated increase in effort (time or money).

The appetite for making architectural changes gradually increases until either the cost or the complexity threshold is exceeded. Once either the economics or the ease of use (frequently seen as service agility) limits are reached, it is generally time for a new approach.

It’s easy to pick on Cisco in the cost and complexity game. Their legacy platforms have gone through years of development abuse. Piling on feature after feature ultimately results in a chassis bursting at the seams because of software that has grown increasingly bloated over time. The sheer number of lines of code in their legacy software makes it unwieldy at best.

Cisco would probably even agree with this characterization (unless you ask a sales guy about to close you on an aging platform). This is why they have spawned new product lines over time, based on new supporting infrastructure. It’s all quite natural really.

Increasing cost and complexity creates opportunity

If we look at what Arista did several years ago, we can see the impact of shedding the extra weight of an aging product. By being aggressive in pursuing merchant silicon, they shed a big contributor to their own complexity, which allowed them to drop prices quite a bit. Then they started clean with their software, EOS. It is much easier (both cheaper and faster) to build products unencumbered by backward compatibility requirements for features that border on prehistoric.

The drop in complexity brought an immediate reduction in cost (both capital and operational). For users who had hit either the cost or the complexity barriers, deciding on a new platform could be relatively easy.

trajectory

But fundamentally, is the slope of the cost-complexity line any different?

The most interesting question for network architects and operators to consider is not whether or not a solution is lower on the cost-complexity line but rather is the slope of that line any different? If after incurring the expense and effort of an architectural transition you are fundamentally on the same line, all you have really done is change the y-intercept. This is akin to kicking the can down the road. You will still reach the same cost-complexity threshold, at which time you will need to make the same transition. Only this second transition will be more expensive because it will be at higher scale, which will push upward both the effort and the impact.

The goal ought to be to extend the life of the architecture, preserving your investments in training, process, tools, and integrations. But for this to happen, you need to look beyond just the y-intercept. If a solution looks and feels the same as its predecessor, is the slope of the line really different?

This creates an interesting strategic dynamic. Adoption is easiest when things are equivalent. But value will be greatest when there is real innovation. As a vendor, how do you strike the right balance between the two? Lean too much on the first, and you get disrupted by everything around you (Arista leaning on price and then having white box switching come along, for example). Lean too much on the second, and you might see slow adoption (SDN anyone?).

It’s impossible to strike a perfect balance, so where do you lean?

What to look for

Architects and operators should ask this question to see what kinds of answers come back. An honest answer should lead to follow-on questions. If the solution is largely the same as the incumbent, what are you doing about changing the slope of the line? If the solution is different, what are you doing to ease migration?

An honest dialogue around these topics can be difficult in sales settings, but it is absolutely essential if you want to do something more than just changing the y-intercept.

[Today’s fun fact: Honey is the only food that doesn't spoil. You would think honey badgers would be a little less ornery.]

The post Network cost and complexity: As simple as changing the y-intercept? appeared first on Plexxi.

Read the original blog entry...

More Stories By Michael Bushong

The best marketing efforts leverage deep technology understanding with a highly-approachable means of communicating. Plexxi's Vice President of Marketing Michael Bushong has acquired these skills having spent 12 years at Juniper Networks where he led product management, product strategy and product marketing organizations for Juniper's flagship operating system, Junos. Michael spent the last several years at Juniper leading their SDN efforts across both service provider and enterprise markets. Prior to Juniper, Michael spent time at database supplier Sybase, and ASIC design tool companies Synopsis and Magma Design Automation. Michael's undergraduate work at the University of California Berkeley in advanced fluid mechanics and heat transfer lend new meaning to the marketing phrase "This isn't rocket science."

CloudEXPO Stories
DXWorldEXPO LLC announced today that Big Data Federation to Exhibit at the 22nd International CloudEXPO, colocated with DevOpsSUMMIT and DXWorldEXPO, November 12-13, 2018 in New York City. Big Data Federation, Inc. develops and applies artificial intelligence to predict financial and economic events that matter. The company uncovers patterns and precise drivers of performance and outcomes with the aid of machine-learning algorithms, big data, and fundamental analysis. Their products are deployed by some of the world's largest financial institutions. The company develops and applies innovative machine-learning technologies to big data to predict financial, economic, and world events. The team is a group of passionate technologists, mathematicians, data scientists and programmers in Silicon Valley with over 100 patents to their names. Big Data Federation was incorporated in 2015 and is ...
Dynatrace is an application performance management software company with products for the information technology departments and digital business owners of medium and large businesses. Building the Future of Monitoring with Artificial Intelligence. Today we can collect lots and lots of performance data. We build beautiful dashboards and even have fancy query languages to access and transform the data. Still performance data is a secret language only a couple of people understand. The more business becomes digital the more stakeholders are interested in this data including how it relates to business. Some of these people have never used a monitoring tool before. They have a question on their mind like "How is my application doing" but no idea how to get a proper answer.
All in Mobile is a place where we continually maximize their impact by fostering understanding, empathy, insights, creativity and joy. They believe that a truly useful and desirable mobile app doesn't need the brightest idea or the most advanced technology. A great product begins with understanding people. It's easy to think that customers will love your app, but can you justify it? They make sure your final app is something that users truly want and need. The only way to do this is by researching target group and involving users in the designing process.
CloudEXPO New York 2018, colocated with DevOpsSUMMIT and DXWorldEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 12-13, 2018, in New York City and will bring together Cloud Computing, FinTech and Blockchain, Digital Transformation, Big Data, Internet of Things, DevOps, AI and Machine Learning to one location.
Whenever a new technology hits the high points of hype, everyone starts talking about it like it will solve all their business problems. Blockchain is one of those technologies. According to Gartner's latest report on the hype cycle of emerging technologies, blockchain has just passed the peak of their hype cycle curve. If you read the news articles about it, one would think it has taken over the technology world. No disruptive technology is without its challenges and potential impediments that frequently get lost in the hype. The panel will discuss their perspective on what they see as they key challenges and/or impediments to adoption, and how they see those issues could be resolved or mitigated.