Which will be faster, NFV adoption or server adoption?

The answer to the question - which will be faster, NFV adoption or server adoption? - is a little more complex than you might think.

Server virtualisation is a far simpler proposition than network functions virtualisation (NFV), involving far fewer components.

The main driver for server virtualisation technology is getting better utilisation from servers that were generally underutilised. Server virtualisation was therefore limited to solving a problem that was well contained to the data centre.

NFV is more complex for a number of reasons, including the fact that virtualising networks has major implications beyond the network itself.

When server virtualisation first burst onto the scene, there were only a couple of innovators of virtualisation software and the burden of innovation and education fell on the shoulders of only a few.

Virtualisation was a radically new concept and adoption took a while as customers evaluated the technology and looked to their peers’ successes (or failures) before jumping in.

But when it took off, it took off like a wildfire.

Then VMware introduced VMotion virtual machine (VM) mobility and server virtualisation became far more complicated. Applications, workloads and VMs were decoupled from physical hardware, things got more complex and the seeds for Network Virtualisation were planted.

At the time, storage was virtualised with SAN and NAS device pooling and with virtualised data storage providing better management and easier sharing, servers were also being virtualised for better flexibility and cost improvements.

Networking remained untouched by virtualisation innovation - until now that is.

Networking is about to change in a big way. Like server virtualisation and storage virtualisation before it, networks must evolve to meet today’s fast-paced business needs, cloud-based delivery and requirements for a more cost-effective and flexible solution.

NFV can point to the huge success of server virtualisation, and the proposition of jumping into NFV now seems pretty palatable, with measured risk and huge benefits. For this reason, the transition may be a lot faster than was seen with server virtualisation.

However, for a few reasons, NFV is far more complicated and needs an ecosystem of partners to be successful:

• Proprietary NFV solutions might not deliver optimum results. Telcos that take an ecosystem approach to NFV solutions by leveraging best-of-breed technologies can get the biggest bang for the buck. Open source communities, such as OpenStack, CloudStack and others, are leading the way in innovation. On the hardware front, look for proven hardware vendors in the x86 space that have experience in virtualisation to deliver solutions that are optimised for best performance.
• NFV implementations straddle many organisations and telcos may see a skill gap between network and IT teams. To be successful, clear responsibilities between teams must be established, and by breaking down the silos, greater efficiencies can be leveraged.
• Networks are characteristically oversubscribed and congested. Switching to a new technology can be risky. To mitigate risk, telcos should look for partners that have proven solutions or an innovation centre where NFV solutions and products can be tested and evaluated before deployment.
• Unlike server virtualisation, networks use hardware external to the main processor and can utilise a variety of competing software protocols, making software and hardware interoperability even more vital.

As you can see, for many reasons, NFV is far more complicated than server virtualisation and it can’t stand alone. It needs a full ecosystem of partner technology to enable successful adoption.

Adoption can be shortened though, by choosing technologies and partners that can provide better interoperability with hardware platforms and better performance and features for virtualisation.

Equally important to success is embracing NFV now. Early evaluation and testing of NFV will put telcos in an advantageous position against competitors.

Emulex
http://www.emulex.com

Image courtesy Dave Herholz under CC.