A Contentious Question: The Value Proposition & Target Market Of Virtual Networking Solutions?
I have, what I think, is a simple question I’d like some feedback on:
Given the recent influx of virtual networking solutions, many of which are OpenFlow-based, what possible in-roads and value can they hope to offer in heavily virtualized enterprise environments wherein the virtual networking is owned and controlled by VMware?
Specifically, if the only third-party VMware virtual switch to date is Cisco’s and access to this platform is limited (if at all available) to startup players, how on Earth do BigSwitch, Nicira, vCider, etc. plan to insert themselves into an already contentious environment effectively doing mindshare and relevance battle with the likes of mainline infrastructure networking giants and VMware?
If you’re answer is “OpenFlow and OpenStack will enable this access,” I’ll follow along with a question that asks how long a runway these startups have hanging their shingle on relatively new efforts (mainly open source) that the enterprise is not a typically early adopter of.
I keep hearing notional references to the problems these startups hope to solve for the “Enterprise,” but just how (and who) do they think they’re going to get to consider their products at a level that gives them reasonable penetration?
Service providers, maybe?
It occurs to me that most of these startups are being built to be acquired by traditional networking vendors who will (or will not) adopt OpenFlow when significant enterprise dollars materialize in stacks that are not VMware-centric.
Not meaning to piss anyone off, but many of these startups’ business plans are shrouded in the mystical vail of “wait and see.”
So I do.
Ed: To be clear, this post isn’t about “OpenFlow” specifically (that’s only one of many protocols/approaches,) but rather the penetration of a virtual networking solution into a “closed” platform environment dominated by a single vendor.
If you want a relevant analog, look at the wasteland that represents the virtual security startups that tried to enter this space (and even the larger vendors’ solutions) and how long this has taken/fared.
If you read the comments below, you’ll see people start to accidentally tease out the real answer to the question I was asking…about the value of these virtual networking solutions providers. The funny part is that despite the lack of comments from most of the startups I mention, it took Brad Hedlund (from Cisco) to recognize why I wrote the post, which is the following:
“The *real* reason I wrote this piece was to illustrate that really, these virtual networking startups are really trying to invade the physical network in virtual sheep’s clothing…”
…in short, the problem space they’re trying to solve is actually in the physical network, or more specifically bridge the gap between the two.
- Virtualization’s Urgent Next Step: OpenFlow Networks (informationweek.com)
- VMware’s vShield – Why It’s Such A Pain In the Security Ecosystem’s *aaS… (rationalsurvivability.com)
- Cisco, Microsoft cooperation provides alternative to VMware (infoworld.com)