Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What about 3rd party, 3rd party, off-premise, trusted and untrusted?

I’m stickin’ with my line that “Managed” doesn’t make a good row. It should be just another attribute, not a major division.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Marketing Analysis: Amzaon using Paas/IaaS for Marketing Analysis (Hybrid,External)

HR: Employease using SaaS (Public, External)

Finance: SAP using (Private/Internal)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I still have the tendency of classifying these as “green”, “yellow”, “blue”, and “red” but that is somewhat old school for the big cloud.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

To make this clearer to folks who haven’t been in the sausage factory all this time I’d suggest perhaps putting real world examples with each model (much like you did for me earlier in the comment stream) to help people visualize how the model plays out.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Let me just ask this, if I put a blue line with Organization / Third party provider in the “Managed by” column and under “Public” in the “accessible and consumed by” to “untrusted” only, would that work?

If I do that, then I just need a better definition of “trusted” — if I remove the “…governed customer/members” but at the end it could encompass “authorized” users that are not governed as a logical extension of the organization…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t understand your comment “Who does the managing can’t be defining characteristic for that to happen. The defining characteristics have to be functional (not operational).” In fact, I maintain it’s critical.

If “management” includes the definition of and in many cases (like the Go-Grid example in the comments above) operational roles of crafting and executing policy, then it HAS to be a factor in definition, just like ownership is.

In the table, private already designates “trusted” use.

I’ve updated the table, check it again…

I’m going to go noodle on your points. Whenever I can’t visualize a gap in thinking from someone like you with whom I normally agree, I know I’m missing something.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I disagree with this: “Private SPECIFICALLY denotes ORGANIZATION management, not third party.” I’d rather that Private primarily denote that access is only to “Trusted” things.

I think it’s possible to have a single table like yours that makes sense from every angle, but not the way you’ve got it. Who does the managing can’t be defining characteristic for that to happen. The defining characteristics have to be functional (not operational).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Use “on-premises” or “off-premises” to denote physical location of the infrastructure. That’s what’s really important and (even better) it frees us up to..

Use “internal” or “external” to describe the users of the service as they relate to the organization. “Trusted” is such a loaded word that I think you might want to avoid it… I don’t “trust” my users any more than I “trust” my customers.

Combining that with your use of those nice directional arrows gives me a more solid feeling with where you are going…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Absolutely! I have customers (or had) doing it today. Here’s an example: you outsource what amounts to your Intranet to GoGrid using what amounts to their co-location model with scale/utility billing added to it. You manage the stack…they provide the hardware. You VPN back to HQ.

Perhaps I should change “Owned by” to “Infrastructure Owned By”…check out the arrows I added to clarity

But Private Clouds are absolutely valid in either model…perhaps not well adopted as of yet, but I feature them in my Frogs presentation.

Perhaps a friend’s comments to me need to be made as a disclaimer…”I’m playing 3 dimensional chess on a 2 dimensional board.”

/Hoff

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ah, in the case of private clouds, those little blue lines are critical in the table.

The blue lines represent distinct linear branches of service deployments whereas the use of “or & and” in the hybrid model indicate that both parties can manage/own in combination.

So in the case of Private, this means you can have:

Private : organization-managed : organization-owned : Internally-located ||
Private : organization-managed : third party-owned : externally-located

Private SPECIFICALLY denotes ORGANIZATION management, not third party.

Managed means the opposite.

I had to make a distinction between public and private with managed.

Hybrid is a free-for-all.

I wonder if I put little arrows denoting a path in the table if that would help.

The Table is an image from a PPT slide I created…if you want, I can put it up…

/Hoff

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You can have a Private cloud managed by a 3rd party, owned by a 3rd party, located both internally and externally, and still only be consumed by trusted sources within the organization. So what differentiates Hybrid from that?

Same story with Managed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Looking at the “Private” model.. Is the use case of a system managed by an organization but owned by a 3rd party and located externally a feasible one??? I don’t think so but am open to being corrected.

I grok the public, managed, and hybrid models but private just doesn’t feel right… For example, only the private model cares about trusting or not trusting the consumer. I think you could make a case that trust or not trusting the consumer doesn’t really matter – the level of authentication/validation is driven by the requirements of the application/service not by delivery model.

Maybe if you kick 3rd party out of the private model in the “owned by” column that makes more sense… The alternative (which I still submit doesn’t make sense) gets covered in the catchall hybrid model…

I’m also feeling stronger as I write this that trust/non-trust doesn’t matter… But, again, I’m open to discussion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

An example would be two internal divisions of a Mega-corporation who have seperate support teams that classify the other as Untrusted. Wouldn’t a cloud provider see the Mega-corporation as a single entity although there could be two seperate contracts for the divisions with different personnel permitted to the cloud. If the cloud provider is contracted to do the work can the same staff member of the cloud be permitted to access the different systems if they are deemed to be untrusted of each other?

One man’s “Trusted” is the other mans “Public”? hmmm.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

1) the confusion (or terminological laziness) you point out regarding Public- Private distinction and the External-Internal distinction definitely DOES make sense.

Taking some liberties (and at risk of getting into a kerfuffle about cloud and electricity grid analogies):
Many public electric utilities will permit the individual property owner to deploy electricity generating equipment, and supply power back to the public grid, so long as the public utility has a level of administrative and management control on the means of production. This seems like an analogous situation to your Public IaaS utilizing an “internal”, privately OWNED source of production.

2) Some years ago, BT proposed a grid-computing “service” in which corporate compute resources (or at least some portion of them) would be under the management responsibility of a BT Operation, Administration and Management facility. In something of a co-op arrangement, many subscribers to the service were also members of the community which contributed resources to the pool, allowing the BT management service to allocate / re-allocate resources to those members on a near-realtime basis. This is an example of an MSP taking responsibility for the management of means of production and resultant resource distribution — a situation where the means of production is privately owned (by the member/customer), and located internally, but managed by a third party.

3) Question to you about the “Accessible / Consumed by” descriptor: you’ve made the distinction one of trusted versus untrusted. Is this an issue of identity, authentication and access only? Is this an issue of assurance that the consumer has the ability to pay for service (e.g. a valid credit card)? Means of access is sufficiently secure? It wasn’t addressed in any detail, so I’m not sure precisely what it means.

= R

Like or Dislike: 0  0

However, before I suggested alternative titles (which nobody will agree on I wanted to discuss the issue first.

/Hoff

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think looking at cloud descriptions as a combination of “who runs it” and “who uses it” makes perfect sense. It acknowledges that cloud computing styles are going to cross all of the sizes of enterprise and have to meet requirements/budgets of all manners and sizes.

One nit to pick: I think at this stage of discussing cloud architecture that precision in terms is vital. It seems to me that a lot of the consternation in the community could be resolved if a common set of vocabulary and concepts was used. That way we could argue about specifics of the technology and its design versus arguing about labels…

Like or Dislike: 0  0