Virtualized networks--including 5G--are in some ways more complex than legacy, single-vendor networks. Separating hardware platforms from software often involves the physical equivalent of containerizing and segmenting functions, decomposing functions into the physical equivalent of "additional layers."
Reduced cost and complexity are among the hoped-for advantages of virtualization and open approaches to infrastructure.
But at least early on, integration costs and chores could be substantial, undermining the business cases. There is a cost to integrate hardware and software elements from many suppliers, while still achieving the same performance and time to market as an integrated, single-vendor network.
source: Ericsson, Analysys Mason
To be sure, complexity varies. Virtualizing software functions and separating those functions from the hardware, in a single-vendor environment, is one thing. Supporting multiple vendors on a mix-and-match basis--such as is desired for open radio access networks--adds more complexity.
Open radio access networks have faced some commercial skepticism from service providers that typically need “bulletproof” infrastructure and find current open RAN platforms incomplete, not fully vetted and tested.
The new cost and complextiy management related to open network approaches therefore remains an issue, early in the adoption process.
And while cost savings are a key driver of open approaches, lower capex is not the only attraction. Agility is the other hoped-for advantage.
source: Ericsson, Analysys Mason
Still, service providers are going to be careful about rushing into more-open networks, for the simple reason that reliability, availability and consistency of their networks is deemed so essential.
So some might not be surprised if it is another decade before open radio networks, for example, are considered typical. The same is likely to apply to many other efforts to create open functions across the rest of the network.
No comments:
Post a Comment