Software-Based Network Intelligence Survey: Final Results

Transcription

1 Software-Based Network Intelligence Survey: Final Results Prepared by Sponsored by March 2013

2 Overview The Software-Based Network Intelligence Benchmark survey was conducted in February/March 2013 to assess the progress made by telecom and network equipment manufacturers (TEMs/NEMs) in their deployment of network intelligence software in their products. The survey consisted of three demographic questions and 10 questions specific to deployment of softwarebased network intelligence. A total of 147 industry professionals participated in the Software-Based Network Intelligence Benchmark survey. Of that total, 109 respondents worked for a telecom or network equipment supplier. The survey results presented in this report pertain specifically to those respondents who indicated that they work for a TEM or NEM. Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of TEM/NEM respondents to the Software-Based Network Intelligence Benchmark survey. Figure 1: TEM/NEM Respondents by Region (n=109) Survey Results by Question Multicore technology maturity: The first deployment evaluation question asked respondents to assess the maturity of multicore technology. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement that multicore has matured to the point that it can replace application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and network processing units (NPUs) for the handling of network intelligence (NI) functions and advanced IP payload handling. Results for TEM/NEM respondents are shown in Figure 2 on the next page. Nearly 80 percent of TEM/NEM participants said they agreed that multicore is now mature enough to replace ASICs and NPUs for NI functions such as packet processing and for advanced IP payload handling such as deep packet inspection (DPI) and flow management. These results clearly indicate that multicore technology is widely perceived to be a proven option for deployment in telecom and network equipment for these tasks. 2

3 Figure 2: Responses to, Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: Multicore technology has matured to the point that it is now capable of replacing applicationspecific integrated circuits (ASICs) and network processing units (NPUs) for Network Intelligence (NI) functions such as packet processing and advanced IP payload handling such as deep packet inspection (DPI) and flow management. (n=107) Migration to Software-Based NI: Respondents then were asked about their company s plans to use software-based NI in its products. About 40 percent of TEM/NEM respondents said their company had already moved to a model that assumes the use of software-based NI, and an additional 49.1 percent said their company saw the migration to software based NI as either critical or preferred (see Figure 3). This result suggests that equipment makers are firmly commited to the idea of deploying software-based NI in their products. Figure 3: Responses to, Which of the following statements best reflects your company's view of how it will utilize software-based NI in the design of future products? (n=108) 3

4 Software-based NI support by function: Survey respondents were next asked to rate the importance of software-based NI support to four basic functions: security, traffic management, policy control, and deep packet inspection (DPI). In all cases, the vast majority respondents saw support for all four functions as critical or important (see Figure 4). Function Critical Important Marginal Not important Security 48.1% 38.9% 13.0% 0.0% Traffic management 40.7% 49.1% 9.3% 0.9% Policy control 48.1% 47.2% 4.6% 0.0% Deep packet inspection 33.3% 44.4% 20.4% 1.9% Figure 4: Responses to, Software-based NI can be used to support a number of product functions. Please rate the value proposition of supporting the following functions using NI. (n=108) Use of software-based DPI and flow management: Survey respondents next were asked about their company s strategy to deploy software-based DPI and flow management technology in future product development. More than half of all TEM/NEM respondents said they expect to implement software-based DPI and flow management by the end of 2013, with nearly 30 percent reporting their company already has such implementations under way (see Figure 5). Figure 5: Responses to, Which of the following statements best reflects your company's view of incorporating software-based DPI and flow management technology into future product development? (n=108) Sourcing software-based DPI and flow management: The next survey question addressed the issue of where TEM/NEM respondents expected their companies to source software-based DPI and flow management solutions. Almost half of all respondents said their companies would develop software-based DPI and flow management internally, with less than 25 percent saying they 4

5 would use a third-party partner to provide software-based DPI and flow management solutions (see Figure 6). Nearly 30 percent said their company had still not decided on a sourcing strategy. Figure 6: Responses to, Which of the following statements best reflects your company's view of where it will source software-based DPI and flow management functionality? (n=108) Support for virtualization: Respondents next were asked to assess their company s strategy regarding the integration of virtualization capabilities into future products. Results suggest that TEM/NEMs are not as far along in their planning for virtualization as they are for other softwarebased NI processes, with more than a third saying their company was either 12 to 18 months away from a design plan or that they had no plan to support virtualization (see Figure 7). Figure 7: Responses to, Which of the following statements best reflects your company's view of integrating virtualization capabilities into future products? (n=108) 5

6 Drivers for virtualization: The next survey question focused on the key drivers for developing virtualization capabilities. Cloud-based application delivery and cloud-enabled policy control drew the strongest support from TEM/NEM respondents, while portfolio consolidation was seen as the least important driver among the options listed (see Figure 8). Driver Critical Important Marginal Not important Cloud-based application delivery 57.9% 28.0% 11.2% 2.8% Cloud-enabled policy control 42.1% 45.8% 11.2% 0.9% Enhanced access to cloud applications 33.3% 46.7% 17.1% 2.9% Separation of application software from hardware 39.8% 47.2% 11.1% 1.9% Portfolio consolidation 21.7% 40.6% 28.3% 9.4% Figure 8: Responses to, Please rate the importance of the following drivers for developing virtualization capabilities in future products. (n=105 to 108) Use of third-party virtualization software: Respondents next were asked about their company s plans use third-party (i.e., open source) virtualization software in their product designs. Less than a third of all TEM/NEM respondents said their company is strongly committed to open source, while the vast majority said they will be using virtualization software from their preferred vendors which may or may not include open source (see Figure 9). Figure 9: Responses to, Which of the following best reflects your company's view of integrating third-party virtualization software into product designs (n=105) Use of a common suite of NI software functions: Respondents were asked about their company s strategy regarding the use of a common suite of NI software functions across an entire product portfolio. The question is based on the stated premise that NI software has the potential to converge network applications and functions across the infrastructure from access, edge, core into the data center. Results for this survey question suggest that equipment vendors believe that such consolidation is valuable, but most have not begun to design products using a suite of NI software functions (see Figure 10, next page). 6

7 Figure 10: Responses to, Which of the following statements best reflects your company's view of a future product design strategy [regarding use of a common suite of NI software functions across your entire product portfolio]? (n=108) Competitive challenges in implementing NI: Lastly, respondents were asked to rate the competitive challenges their company may face in implementing NI software. Most TEM/NEM respondents identified performance and capacity as the biggest competitive challenge (see Figure 11). Competitive Challenge Critical Important Marginal Not important Performance & capacity 55.1% 38.3% 6.5% 0.0% Increasing application capabilities through NI 24.8% 56.2% 18.1% 1.0% Managing total cost of ownership 26.9% 56.5% 15.7% 0.9% Time to market 32.4% 52.8% 13.0% 1.9% Figure 11: Responses to, Please rate the following competitive challenges your company may face in implementing NI. (n=105 to 108) 7

8 About Heavy Reading Heavy Reading ( is an independent market research organization offering quantitative and qualitative analysis of telecom technology to service providers, technology suppliers, and investors. Its mandate is to provide comprehensive competitive analysis needed for the deployment of profitable networks based on next-generation hardware and software. Heavy Reading produces nearly 100 research reports per year, including industryleading technology assessments, market tracker reports for emerging technologies, and concise research reports focusing on the telecom industry s most dynamic vertical market sectors. Heavy Reading offers a wide range of custom/consulting services aimed at identifying market and revenue opportunities for telecom industry clients. These services include in-depth product and marketing strategy assessments, independent surveys to assess and validate demand and spending trends for new products and services, and consultations on specific product and go-tomarket strategies. For more information about Heavy Reading and its products and services, please contact Dave Williams, Global Sales Director, at dave.williams@heavyreading.com. 8