ACG Research

ACG Research
We focus on the Why before the What
Showing posts with label Robert Haim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Haim. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The Business Value of Agility

Infrastucture and service agility require the right tools, and one important tool is operations support system, which allows CSPs to reduce time-to-market and lower the cost of new service creation and deployment, operating in a hybrid infrastructure (traditional and virtualized) during CSP’s business transformation. The focus on this paper is on quantifying the impact of being agile. The paper first provides the definition of agility and then quantifies the time-to-market, service creation and revenue generation advantages of being able to create new services quicker and taking them to market faster. Robert Haim of ACG has determined that there is a 77% savings in labor cost, 13% differential in revenue generation per service launched based on a faster time-to-market advantage and a 47% increase in revenue level based on increased number of services that can be launched.

Click to download Economics of Agility_ACG.

Click for more information about ACG’s business case analysis services or contact sales@acgcc.com.

 
         Robert Haim
     rhaim@acgcc.com
       www.acgcc.com

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Business Case Analysis: Ericsson Router 8801 Distributed Subscriber Management

OTT traffic places huge demands on the backbone network. Three major trends are contributing to this: 1. Content moving towards 4K media streaming and requiring seven-times the bandwidth for each individual stream; 2. Increase in subscriber scale with the explosion of connected devices; 3. End users’ expectation of 24x7 connectivity with a high quality of experience to all of their favorite content from any location or device.

To address these trends, service providers must be able to satisfy consumers’ expectations and offer personalized services in a dynamic manner. To prepare the network to handle the relentless growth, service providers are reassessing their network and system architectures and building their content distribution networks based on a distributed network deployment model and disaggregated system architecture.

This paper will primarily focus on the shift in service providers’ requirements for the subscriber management function. It also discusses the disaggregation of functions in relation to subscriber management and distributed cloud-based networking.

Robert Haim of ACG Research conducted an analysis of Router 8801 deployment in a distributed subscriber management network architecture. The scenario compares Router 8801 to a leading second best alternative offering. The study found Router 8801 return on investment (ROI) levels of 299% for a single stack (IPv4 or IPv6 addresses) and 335% in a dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6 addressing) mode over seven years. Total cost of ownership savings levels of 65% (single stack) and 66% (dual stack) were found during the same period.

Read more: ACG Ericsson Router 8801 Business Case.

Contact sales@acgcc.com for more information about developing your business case.


         Robert Haim
     rhaim@acgcc.com
       www.acgcc.com

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Juniper Analyst Day Report

Juniper Networks’ full commitment to virtualization of the network was clear at the NXTWORK 2015. Juniper introduced Cloud CPE, a fully automated end-to-end NFV solution to enable its customers to implement a smooth migration strategy for their existing purpose-built networks to a virtualized, more efficient infrastructure. 

Key Findings
  • Juniper’s Cloud CPE solution includes Contrail Service Orchestration, an important feature for both service creation and automation, that can greatly benefit their customers to gain competitive advantage in service introduction with faster time to market.
  • Juniper’s Cloud CPE solution is the first of many NFV use cases that blends both physical and virtual network services together to simplify the service creation process and automate the entire service delivery process.
  • Junos disaggregation is a good move by Juniper to decouple its software and hardware and place more value on Junos rather it hardware.
  • Juniper’s competitors are also working on similar solutions. Juniper’s professional services becomes a major team to ensure its customer can roll out their virtualized infrastructure in a predictable time frame.


Click for more information about ACG’s business case analysis services or contact sales@acgcc.com.

 
         Robert Haim
     rhaim@acgcc.com
       www.acgcc.com

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

ACG Research Talks Capex and Opex Challenges for NFV and SDN Deployments

ACG's Robert Haim business case analyst, talks with RCR Wireless News about  the telecom industry continues push towards increased reliance on software solutions using virtualization technologies such as network functions virtualization, software-defined networking and cloud platforms, questions surrounding the financial implications of the move remain.
Robert discusses a recent ACG report that shines a more critical light on the financial implications of NFV, SDN and cloud deployments. Haim talks about how telecom operators should view the capex/opex trade off in terms of NFV/SDN deployments; the importance of service innovation gains in terms of the view on costs associated with virtualization platform deployments; and the potential impact “double opex” cost issue might have on how telecom operators approach their NFV and SDN plans.

Click to read more and listen to Robert's interview.

Click for more information about ACG’s business case analysis services or contact information@acgcc.com.

 
         Robert Haim
     rhaim@acgcc.com
       www.acgcc.com

Regardless of Technology, SPs’ Requirement Fundamentals Don’t Change

A basic tenet for infrastructure deployment for service providers and operators is to avoid introducing any platform, system or software that could potentially destabilize their network operation. For a consistent and smooth network operation, service providers demand platforms that offer 99.999 percent availability for a down time of no longer than five minutes per year. It has been demonstrated that network outages that last 10 minutes to several hours can and will have a direct negative impact on a service provider’s business. The cost of long down times can be quantified by SLA penalty clauses, as well as to an inherent opportunity cost in terms of higher customer churn rate and a poor image in the industry.

NFV and Virtualized Network Functions have complicated this issue further. While the promise of a lower TCO is naturally tempting, service providers’ fundamentals in their requirements do not change. VNF or not, they demand carrier-grade, highly available (5 9s or better) systems to ensure that mission-critical applications are protected.

Techniques to ensure high availability there should be redundancy at the network (a shadow network), system (for example, a backup router), hardware (for example, a backup control plane card), processors or other chips. For an NFV based solution, any virtualized function that happens to perform network- and application-critical functions must also offer 5 9s availability.

Examples are:
1. Network protocols that handle the control planes (routing, signaling)
2. Network services (application delivery controllers, for example, DPI, CDN, firewall, load balancers)
3. Packet core SGSN-MME, S/P gateways
4. Subscriber/Business connectivity (PPP, DHCP, GTP connections and tunnels)

The advantage of SDN/VNF based software is in its capability to scale out programmatically based on a priori set of rules. However, to ensure that a connection is not lost or the network does not have to go through a major re-convergence of resources, for example, routes, the time frame for scale out must be of O (milliseconds). This could be challenging to address via scale-outs only. It is better to assign virtual machines that back up critical parts of the network operation. The VMs must reside on a different board and preferably on different servers to protect the network from software crashes that could bring a board or the entire system down. Naturally, the active VM and the stateful backup VM will communicate via some sort of “hello” protocol to be aware of each other’s state, and share updated database of resources, for example, routing tables. The backup VM could be a standby or preferably an active one for load balancing. Of course, an efficient design would include only those software entities that need protection and are afforded a separate backup VM. For example, the control plane of a router needs 1+1 backup whereas the forwarding plane can afford an N+1 backup scheme.

ETSI NFV Expert Group on Availability and Resiliency stipulated its requirement in its specification: [paraphrasing] Single point of failures for the VNFs must be prevented by deployment of “independent” NFVI domains. The implementation of NFV should consider a geographically redundant deployment to introduce high availability to VNFs.

Vendors have followed this directive, and there are some novel and viable approaches that can implement it. Two examples are Wind River’s Titanium server, which introduces both hardware redundancy and software resiliency to the VNF that run on it. Another novel approach has been taken by Stratus Computers with its Software Defined Availability, which moves downtime prevention and recovery from the hardware or the OS to an “automated” software layer. When a failure occurs, a previously paired VM is brought back up, leveraging the cloud to run the application under protection. Stratus claims that with their SDA “any application with any availability need can be run in the cloud with application transparency.” The novel design stems from the company’s claim that no application code changes are required to benefit from SDA. Pairs of VMs are created between servers and the state of VMs is captured regularly and asynchronously, offering a stateful operational mode.

Clearly, the industry is on the right track for ensuring protection of VNFs that need it. The approach that is taken by vendors can be leveraged as a competitive advantage if they can demonstrate 5 9s simultaneously with efficient use of resources.

Click for more information about Robert Haim.


         Robert Haim
     rhaim@acgcc.com
       www.acgcc.com

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

SDN/NFV: Gold Rush or Fool’s Gold?

Another gold rush has brought a high level of excitement to the network infrastructure producers and consumers alike. The mad dash to SDN/NFV feels like déjà vu, for example, mid 1990s for ATM and late 1990s for MPLS. See Paul Parker Johnson’sHow SDN (Today) Is Like MPLS Was (Then).” There are huge expectations from all stakeholders to offer and implement infrastructures that reduce both capital and operational expenditures, in addition to opening new doors for rapid deployment of innovative and lucrative business services.

Intuitively, the SDN/NFV combination should reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO), both capex (COTS versus purpose-built hardware) and opex (cost of provisioning and network maintenance). In evaluating TCO, there are other costs that could favor one approach versus the other.

Most often, capex savings are only discussed in terms of COTS hardware versus physical or purpose-built hardware. Basically, capex includes any upfront nonrecurring cost; that includes the cost of “network roll-out” (NRO), which is the cost of integration, testing and verification of the incremental hardware into the existing infrastructure. Unlike the cost of hardware, this cost component is not usually depreciable unless the NRO is done by the hardware vendor, and the cost is negotiated in advance. Other capex costs can include the cost of the underlying transmission network (in some countries this is leased). For NFV, the transmission network (and eventually the hardware maintenance) can be leased from the owner of the data center, which turns this cost into an opex component as it becomes a recurring cost.

A major advantage of SDN/NFV is in its opex, which gives the operators the ability to rapidly provision new services. Service roll-out is reduced by an order of magnitude of months to days. Moreover, with fast service roll-out, a new service can be tested with a limited set of customers first, and then upon favorable feedback it can be introduced to the entire target market. This can save a lot of headache (and money) later if the service turns out to be not as well received as it was expected.

Today, most infrastructures that are built on purpose-built hardware are going to stay in operation for a while and in many cases even after they are fully depreciated. Therefore, while migration to function virtualization is moving forward, operators will face a period of a “double opex” cost factor. This is not lost on anyone, and it can become a factor in delaying the decision to virtualization.

The move to virtualization requires a close study of the intermediate and long-term goals of the organization: customer needs, market penetration goals, and service offering to name a few. Although cost containment is a big factor, the revenue side of the equation must be given a much higher weight to remain competitive. After all, costs cannot go below zero, but the sky is the proverbial limit for revenue generation! And this is where SDN/NFV based infrastructures shine: rapid deployment of new and potentially lucrative services.


 
         Robert Haim
     rhaim@acgcc.com
       www.acgcc.com