Software defined networking (SDN) is generating a lot of excitement in data centres and other networks, but it is really a simple market correction – overcoming the industry’s fixation on proprietary hardware boxes for generic functions.
“We are in a very good position to help the market understand what SDN is,” Bailey told TechWeekEurope. “We are not disrupted by it – but we are not betting on it like some of the startups.”
Bailey started Infoblox in 1999, with a mission to make networks simpler. This started with appliances to handle repetitive network tasks such as managing DNS, DHCP and the like, calling itself the “iTunes of IP” – and TechWeekEurope has referred to it by the somewhat dismissive handle of “network housekeeper.”
By the time the company had its IPO in April, its mission was broadened to become what Bailey calls “the leader in control plane software for networking”.
When the software-defined networking story “broke” about 18 months ago, Infoblox found itself in a really good place – the incumbent vendor in the network control plane space, which SDN was about to turn into a crucial area for network vendors. Infoblox took a vocal role in the Open Networking Foundation, where the OpenFlow standard is owned.
So, what does he say about SDN? “Before you understand SDN, you have to ask what is hardware defined networking,” says Bailey. He believes that SDN is a technology story, in which the old approach where networks were defined by hardware will inevitably be displaced.
“The striking thing about hardware defined networking, is that it is an entire huge industry organised along box function lines,” he says. “Vendors, analysts, and even the way internal IT teams at user companies are organised. The entire business is structured around firewalls, load balancers, WAN optimisers, and so on.”
The industry needs to change, he says, because of a fundamental falsehood in the way the industry works now. While vendors are busily selling firewalls and switches as if they are different objects, they are in fact, pretty much the same. “They are fast, they are cheap and they are Ethernet,” he says. “The differentiator is in the software.”
While boxes are becoming more commoditised, the users aren’t getting the economic value that buyers of other equipment – say servers – are getting as hardware simplifies.
“This is really a market correction that has been building for several years,” he says. “On the other side of this correction, organisations that need scalable network infrastructure will have a different method of deploying it. They will have ultra-commoditised hardware and rich software.” The value in networking, he says, will shift to the control plane – software not hardware.
The change is similar to the death of standalone word processors, killed by the PC, or the mainframe, whose progress was halted by general purpose computers from minis to blade servers. The big marker, for him was when virtualisation player VMware, paid $1.26 billion for SDN start-up Nicira in July 2012.
“It is an industrial value shift,” he says, “shifting from box function to cheap hardware and value added software is a big deal for the landscape of vendors. It is a bigger trend than we saw in virtualisation. It is more fundamental – because servers were already general purpose before being virtualised. The virtualisation trend was about consolidation; SDN is being driven by a fundamental shift in economics.”
That begs a big question: What will this do to the network incumbents?
“The landscape of vendors in hardware-defined network is going to be radically disrupted,” says Bailey. “There will be two classes of vendors: those that are focused on the software, who can solve the complexity problems that are a barrier to scale, and those focused on low-margin commodity hardware to support that software.”
Bailey won’t predict what individual firms will do, but he does believe that “Those who buy network infrastructure will have a much better set of products that attack the problems of complexity and cost, and this will open up opportunities for emerging vendors. I don’t think we have seen this kind of movement in a major space since the 1980s.”
I ask where Cisco will go, and he won’t be drawn. It seems to us that the incumbent vendors can’t make that decision. Cisco’s CTO, Padmasree Warrior maintains Cisco can weather the SDN storm by offering a superset of the standard on its hardware, maintaining the special role of Cisco switches, and we can’t see how it can move. “Cisco is complacent,” he says, “that is exactly what IBM said in the 1980s.”
We push him. Should Cisco change to become a commodity hardware vendor? That would throw away one of the industry’s most enviable margins – albeit possibly just before someone else takes that margin away from it, but why throw it away pre-emptively? If it moves to be software-only, it loses the hardware completely. If it splits into two, we suggest, the sum of the parts is inevitably less then the whole, as that is the fundamental correction that Bailey is proposing.
Maybe, but he won’t predict which direction the network giant will move. “If they become the standard for commoditised cheap hardware, and truly make an ecosystem for third parties, that would be fundamentally disruptive to the way their channel is structured. Conversely if they really focus on software, they have to standardise on a hardware platform that is not theirs. This is all fundamentally disruptive to their worldview.”
But Cisco’s rivals face the same problems: “This is equally disruptive to Juniper – it is really about the hardware defined network, business.”
Infoblox is small potatoes compared to these giants, but it’s been software-defined since the start, even though it used to sell only appliances. The appliances are still there, but hardware is only incidental, says Bailey – Infoblox only charges ten percent more when the software is delivered on hardware, compared with just getting the software delivered virtually. And all of Infoblox’s new products will be software-only.
“We are well positioned to help in the transition,” says Bailey. “We understand this is a major shift in how people buy and think about networks.”
How quickly will the change happen? Bailey admits he doesn’t know, but says the change will be “dramatic”, and “today is when you should be planning a strategy to understand how your market is going to react to this market correction.”
“When the right pieces fall into place, it will be very fast and transformative in the same way that the Web was, client server was, and the PC was: “When these things really started to happen, it changed the landscape of vendors.” And it’s already been starting to happen for a while, he says, as vendors have begun to take advantage of cheap hardware, and adding value in the software.
But despite the apocalyptic tone, this isn’t all bad news: “Efficient markets are healthy. The more the market can be prepared for this shift, the more everybody wins. Vendors get value, consumers get value, and the market is healthier.”
Yikes – better do our Cisco quiz, while the network giant is still around!
Fourth quarter results beat Wall Street expectations, as overall sales rise 6 percent, but EU…
Hate speech non-profit that defeated Elon Musk's lawsuit, warns X's Community Notes is failing to…
Good luck. Russia demands Google pay a fine worth more than the world's total GDP,…
Google Cloud signs up Spotify, Paramount Global as early customers of its first ARM-based cloud…
Facebook parent Meta warns of 'significant acceleration' in expenditures on AI infrastructure as revenue, profits…
Microsoft says Azure cloud revenues up 33 percent for September quarter as capital expenditures surge…
View Comments
Interesting article for sure. I do think some of this might be a little bit too black and white.
From the article:
"There will be two classes of vendors: those that are focused on the software, who can solve the complexity problems that are a barrier to scale, and those focused on low-margin commodity hardware to support that software.”
I don't think this is necessarily true. No matter how intelligent the control software, there is still a need for the underlying hardware. And while those prices will come down (due to competition more than SDN, IMO), remember that part of the price reflects things outside the box like procurement, supportability, and integration.
A more likely scenario, IMO, is that those who want to be big players in networking will need to have a foot in both the hardware and the software camps. Pure software companies will be at the mercy of the hardware guys. Example: let's say that IT spend is 100 dollars. If the hardware costs 90 dollars, the software company can at best make 10 bucks on the deal. SDN isn't going to increase the amount of networking spend; it will mean customers get more for it though.
Now where I think Infoblox and others have it absolutely right is that information in the network has value. Capturing and then sharing that info is the more interesting part of SDN so far as I am concerned.
[full disclosure: I work for a networking company in the SDN space]
Michael Bushong (@mbushong), couldn't agree more that capturing and sharing information in the network will be a huge benefit of SDN. But, the real promise of SDN is in both reducing complexity AND reducing costs.
I believe that SDN is a technology and an economic story.
To get the most out of it, we'll have to get to a place where the networking hardware is inexpensive and commoditized, so the ecosystem of third party software can be rich and adding value without making costs skyrocket for the consumers of networking – similar to what we saw in the server infrastructure game.
Back in the 80s/90s, companies like DEC, Data General, Wang, SGI, and Sun attempted to take the middle ground between higher margin hardware and software. While that strategy seemed reasonable for awhile, Moore's Law eventually eroded hardware value and where are those companies now?