NFV world congress a couple of months ago.
In NFV and to a certain extent in SDN as well, service availability is achieved through a combination of functions redundancy and fast failover routing whenever a failure is detected in the physical or virtual fabric. Availability is a generic term, though and covers different expectations whether you are a consumer, operator or enterprise. The telecom industry has heralded the mythical 99.999% or five nines availability as the target to reach for telecoms equipment vendors.
This goal has led to networks and appliances that are super redundant, at the silicon, server, rack and geographical levels, with complex routing, load balancing and clustering capabilities to guarantee that element failures do not impact catastrophically services. In today's cloud networks, one arrives to the conclusion that a single cloud, even tweaked can't performed beyond three nines availability and that you need a multi-cloud strategy to attain five nines of service availability...
Consumers, over the last ten years have proven increasingly ready to accept a service that might not be always of the best quality if the price point is low enough. We all remember the start of skype when we would complain of failed and dropped calls or voice distortions, but we all put up with it mostly because it was free-ish. As the service quality improved, new features and subscriptions schemes were added, allowing for new revenues as consumers adopted new services.
One could think from that example that maybe it is time to relax the five nines edict from telecoms networks but there are two data points that run counter to that assumption.
- The first and most prominent reason to keep a high level of availability is actually a regulatory mandate. Network operators operate not only a commercial network but also a series of critical infrastructure for emergency and government services. It is easy to think that 95 or 99% availability is sufficient until you have to deliver 911 calls, where that percentage difference means loss of life.
- The second reason is more innate to network operators themselves. Year after year, polls show that network operators believe that the way they outcompete each others and OTTs in the future is quality of service, where service availability is one of the first table stakes.
As I am writing this blog, SDN and NFV in wireless have struggled through demonstrating basic load balancing and static traffic routing, to functions virtualization and auto scaling over the last years. What is left to get commercial grade (and telco grade) offerings is resolving the orchestration bit (I'll write another post on the battles in this segment) and creating a service that is both scalable and portable.
The portable bit is important, as a large part of the value proposition is to be able to place functions and services closer to the user or the edge of the network. To do that, an orchestration system has to be able to detect what needs to be consumed where and to place and chain relevant functions there.
Many vendors can demonstrate that part. The difficulty arises when it becomes necessary to scale in or down a function or when there is a failure.
Physical and virtual functions failure are to be expected. When they arise in today's systems, there is a loss of service, at least for the users that were using these functions. In some case, the loss is transient and a new request / call will be routed to another element the second time around, in other cases, it is permanent and the session / service cannot continue until another one is started.
In the case of scaling in or down, most vendors today will starve the virtual function and route all new requests to other VMs until this function can be shut down without impact to live traffic. It is not the fastest or the most efficient way to manage traffic. You essentially lose all the elasticity benefits on the scale down if you have to manage these moribund zombie-VNFs until they are ready to die.
Vendors and operators who have been looking at these issues have come to a conclusion. Beyond the separation of control and data plane, it is necessary to separate further the state of each machine, function service and to centralize it in order to achieve consistent availability, true elasticity and manage disaster recovery scenarios.
In most cases, this is a complete redesign for vendors. Many of them have already struggled to port their product to software, then port it to hypervisor, then optimized for performance... separating state from the execution environment is not going to be just another port. It is going to require redesign and re architecting.
The cloud-native vendors who have designed their platform with microservices and modularity in mind have a better chance, but there is still a series of challenges to be addressed. Namely, collecting state information from every call in every function, centralizing it and then redistribute it is going to create a lot of signalling traffic. Some vendors are advocating some inline signalling capabilities to convey the state information in a tokenized fashion, others are looking at more sophisticated approaches, including state controllers that will collect, transfer and synchronize relevant controllers across clouds.
In any case, it looks like there is still quite a lot of work to be done in creating truly elastic and highly available virtualized, software defined network.