[192839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Accepting a Virtualized Functions (VNFs) into Corporate IT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Tue Nov 29 06:35:43 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>,
Denis Fondras <xxnog@ledeuns.net>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:35:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CA+qGm=_xJLw_dwJrxp56jMux+qfzhoTU4h4BzBnunzRyvmW5vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 29/Nov/16 12:55, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> This is a really interesting thread; my telco clients are mad keen on
> various solutions of this general form. As a rule they would love to
> consolidate their various SME and enterprise CPEs down to a single x86 box
> that gets configured with VNFs from a central VIM or container pool. But
> they'd also love to sell you all your networking out of that box - and one
> of the big questions I have is just how many companies would accept "LAN as
> a Service". It may be even more difficult for SMEs as the cost of going
> back on the deal is higher the less in-house capability you have.
I'd say it's reasonably common.
We have a number of 3rd party companies running the LAN's of our
enterprise customers, here in Africa.
Mark.
