If SDN, and it’s “sister” NFV, actually achieve the hype that has been circulating could we actually have a day where infrastructure cloud providers are really no longer “independently” purchased by the data center manager (or CMO, or COO, or whatever flavor of “business driven cloud consumer” you choose). Instead, could we see a day where there are ecosystems in place such that the SDN management software has a direct link with specific cloud providers (e.g. one for compute, another for storage, etc.). some have called that “real time infrastructure”. My question though is – could, concurrently, each SDN ecosystem have an optimized set of API’s such that the SDN management software can dynamically provision and de-provision pre-determined, contractually bound, specific cloud sourced resources real-time, from a pre-selected cloud provider in that eco-system.
At that point, the data center manager really doesn’t care who the specific cloud provider is, assuming that the ecosystem has properly vetted that cloud provider. If that is possible, then is it possible that one of the very large global infrastructure providers would own both ends (the SDN Management environment AND the cloud infrastructure services)? Do IaaS cloud providers really then focus their attention on SDN developers, rather than data center managers?
It’s funny. It seems there are two sets of conversations around SDN, and perhaps around every new technology.
First, there are the business entities (vendors, disti’s, VAR’s, SP’s, end-users) who dismiss the general hype and then take their existing product set and re-position themselves within their general definition of the technology, basically pulling SDN (or VDI, or whatever) back in its evolutionary progression, and highlighting existing capabilities they have that “already do SDN, and have been for years”.
Second, there are the business entities that embrace the hype, define it in their own way (“spin”), and talk about how their new products will fit into their definition of the SDN hype.
It feels like those firms that are not marketing oriented, who are really engineering oriented, will fall into the first camp. These firms come across as defensive and there is a whiff of a threat that they cannot quite get their heads around. Conversely, the firms who understand the value of the hype and are trying to ride the wave in order to sell their products, fall into the second camp. Their threat is the risk of being exposed as a “fake” by the engineers of the first camp who dissect the second camp’s solutions such as they are, in the here and now, dismissing the marketing opportunity, all for the sake of truth in engineering.
I wonder if the first camp is going to lose. If not outright, might they lose a step or two?
Sizzle sells, whether it is perfume or routers.