This survey is a good mix of global telco service providers in uncovering the thoughts of CSPs in different regional markets about the future and development of IP transport network disaggregation and its technological implications.
Omdia view
Summary
Communication service providers (CSPs) rely less on one vendor’s proprietary monolithic network solutions. They do so because of increasing opex and capex, fear of a single point of failure, and vendor deadlocks in 5G, cloud, enterprise, and industrial digitalization. The open secret of a much-known marvel of network openness and freedom of choice becomes a catalytic driver in adopting disaggregated networking.
CSPs’ demands for transport network disaggregation get more flare during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. It poses question marks on the hugely impacted and dependency on one vendor’s supply chain. The notion of open network disaggregation appeals as a viable solution to CSPs that helps them move away from the reliance on one vendor’s proprietary monolithic networking equipment.
The Omdia service provider routing and switching analyst team sensed that network disaggregation is now getting industry traction and is becoming a hot topic that needs further detailed research and opinion polls. In addition to previously published reports, thought pieces, and webinars, now it is time to hear service providers’ (SPs) opinions and viewpoints about the traction of transport network disaggregation
Survey qualification questions: respondents’ overview
Type of network operators or service providers
This survey uncovers CSPs’ thoughts about adopting IP network disaggregation and its future development and technological implications. Extensive efforts were made to include the opinions of telco SPs worldwide of various sizes and operating revenues.
Roughly 80% of the CSPs respondents are from the following:
- Incumbent fixed (wireline) network operators
- Pure mobile operators
- FMC service operators (both fixed and mobile assets)
- Cable operators (with limited scope in this survey)
- MVNO infrastructure SPs
Figure 1: Type of network operators
Source: Omdia
Figure 2: CSPs’ revenues
Source: Omdia
Company headquarters’ locations and job positions
The survey was translated into different regional languages, so respondents could easily respond to the questions.
- Respondents from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) and Asia & Oceania were 30% and 29%, respectively.
- North America represented 20% of overall participation in the survey.
- Latin America & the Caribbean responses were 21%.
Figure 3: In what region is your organization headquartered?
Source: Omdia
Primary job functions and level of influence in purchasing network routing and switching gears
The purpose of including this question was to get the survey filled out from the relevant respondents of SPs. Their primary job function would be key and influential in purchasing IP transport network disaggregated routing and switching gears.
Primary job functions
Hierarchical representation includes all levels, including engineering and middle and senior management. Respondents include:
- 25% from CSPs’ IP network planning and design
- 23% from engineering and interrelated network architecture
- 15% from CSPs’ network operations, who are directly involved in managing and operating IP networks
- 15% from CSPs’ corporate top management, such as vice presidents, directors, and chief experience officers (CXOs), as main decision-making executives
Figure 4: Primary job functions
Source: Omdia
Level of influence in planning and purchase decisions
From this survey, 34% of respondents (including top management, engineering, network planning, and operations) strongly influence planning and purchasing IP transport network routing and switching gears for their network modernization and expansion. Meanwhile, 37% of survey respondents were primary decision makers in buying decisions.
Figure 5: Respondents’ level of influence in purchasing decisions
Source: Omdia
CSPs survey: industry backdrop of IP transport network disaggregation
CSPs’ overall opinions and motivation for transport network disaggregation
CSPs have mixed views about the technology adoption and implementation of open and disaggregated IP transport networking gears. The following are clear survey results:
- 50% of CSPs believe that transport network disaggregation is great in theory but impractical in networks at scale
- 46% believe it is great in potential, but implementing real networking use case is yet to begin
- 4% of CSPs strongly believe that unleashing innovation and allowing entry to emerging white box vendors are the ways of the future
Figure 6: CSPs’ opinions and viewpoints on disaggregated transport networks
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
Omdia concludes that network disaggregation is developing the ecosystem and getting a lot of traction from CSPs to avoid vendors’ proprietary products, solutions, and supply chain processes. Network disaggregation is the way for CSPs to unleash future potential, reduce network gear costs, and ensure a perfect open competition space on a wider scale.
On the flip side, though, emerging white box vendors must work hard to compete strongly and prove the real cost savings and potential implementation use cases for CSPs’ networks.
CSPs’ biggest concerns for their existing transport network and operations
The following are also actual survey results:
- 48% of global CSPs believe that the biggest concern is a dependency on tier 1 vendors’ proprietary solutions
- 23% of CSPs think there is limited competition without open and disaggregated networking
- 22% of CSPs believe that the total cost of ownership is the biggest concern
- 7% of respondents think that the lack of sufficient low-cost advanced feature products and solutions is also a challenge for existing network expansions
Omdia analysis and recommendations
CSPs are tied up with tier 1 vendors’ proprietary solutions, resulting in limited choice controls on their existing network expansion and substantially increasing capex and opex. CSPs look eager to use the open and disaggregated IP transport networking gears as much as possible for their networks and get rid of current tier 1 IP transport network vendors’ proprietary solutions.
Inversely, incumbent tier 1s’ products, solutions, and understanding of proven end-to-end networking design, planning, implementation, and operations give them a strong and big competitive advantage over emerging white box vendors.
Figure 7: CSPs’ biggest concerns for existing IP transport network and operations
Source: Omdia
Top drivers for implementing IP transport network disaggregation
The following are the results of what CSPs responded about the top drivers:
- 48% of CSPs, including mobile and incumbent fixed network SPs from all regions, responded that the biggest driver of adopting transport network disaggregation is the “freedom of choice” in selecting network solutions for existing and greenfield deployments
- This freedom of choice enables 42% of CSPs to ensure efficiency as par for their network because of high competition among network vendors
- 37% of CSPs responded that more competition is the biggest driver to ensure freedom of choice
- 26% of CSPs believe they can achieve agility through network disaggregation
Figure 8: CSPs’ top drivers for implementing network disaggregation
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
The biggest motivation and top driver for all the CSPs globally are to have greater freedom of choice in selecting IP networking gears for their network modernization. Additionally, disaggregated network products and solutions increase the competition and enlarge the choice menu for CSPs to break vendor deadlocks and negotiate prices. This freedom of choice as a top driver also allows CSPs to reduce their capex and opex. It guarantees agility, less dependency on incumbent tier 1s’ solution offerings, and a controlled supply chain.
Significant challenges in implementing network disaggregation in existing and greenfield network deployments
The following are survey results on CSPs’ thoughts on substantial challenges in implementing network disaggregation:
- 42% of CSPs in all regions believe that emerging white box vendors’ experiences in operational support during network outages is a significant challenge in implementing transport network disaggregation
- 34% of total respondents feel that multi-vendor interoperability and the potential to support all end-to-end networking protocols and innovations are the challenges for existing and future greenfield deployments
- 28% of CSPs responded that lack of future technology visibility and stable roadmaps are also a challenge
Figure 9: Significant challenges in implementing transport network disaggregation in existing and greenfield networks
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
Stable, strong, and robust products and solutions roadmaps, clear migration strategies, and end-to-end security assurance for open network routing software with multi-vendor interoperability in existing brownfields and future greenfield deployments are the much-needed demands of CSPs. Emerging white box vendors face big challenges and obstacles compared to incumbent tier1 vendors, whose strength is in providing smooth solutions for CSPs’ existing million-dollar legacy transport network that need upgrading.
Omdia analyzed that emerging white box vendors must work hard in their research centers to prove their next-generation open IP standards and technological breakthroughs to meet CSPs’ ultimate expectations for open IP transport network disaggregation.
Risk levels in adopting disaggregated transport networking solutions
The following are how CSPs responded regarding the risks involved:
- 63% of CSPs from all regions responded that there is a moderate risk in adopting emerging white box networking solutions for their networks
- Only 18% believe there will be extreme or minimal risks in using disaggregated networking solutions
Figure 10: Risks involved in implementing disaggregated transport networking solutions
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
Most CSPs weigh minimal to moderate risks in reliability and security in the technological implementation of network disaggregation. Further, CSPs do not expect risk-free “superman” disaggregated solutions from emerging white box vendors. The only risk they account for is the weak and complex operational support of handling faults during network outages compared to incumbent tier 1 vendors. Emerging white box vendors must also learn many successful operational support and smooth system integration practices from incumbent tier 1 IP routing vendors.
Specific operating risks involved in using disaggregated transport networking solutions
The following are how CSPs responded regarding the particular risks involved:
- 20% of respondents answered that stability and maturity of the product life cycle management, roadmaps, and development of open network disaggregation is the biggest concern in using network disaggregation gears
- 18% responded that the emerging white box vendors’ global presence and small-scale operational support should be a concern compared to the incumbent IP transport network vendors
- 17% responded that emerging white box vendors’ experience with implementing technical solutions and their operational workforce is risky when implementing network disaggregation
- 12% of CSPs responded that the absence of large-scale research and development (R&D) centers to test complex network and service use cases would be an important risk in the technological implementation of network disaggregation
- 12% of CSPs responded that emerging white box vendors would be unable to remain competitive over the long term
Figure 11: Specific operating risks in implementing network disaggregation
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
An interesting poll shows that CSPs expect most emerging white box vendors need to prove that they can reach the maturity stage of the product life cycle consistently. CSPs also anticipate them to prove that they have roadmaps, a credible and uninterrupted supply chain, and an experienced workforce to address their SPs’ network issues. Stable and large-scale R&D centers for testing new products, including hardware and software solutions, are critical in sustaining long-term competition against incumbent tier 1s.
Realistically, it is not easy to compete and challenge incumbent IP transport vendors because they have already proved to CSPs their capabilities with designing and maintaining large and complex IP networks for many years. The best and quick winning point for the emerging white box vendors is to start with a niche market and limited network implementation scope, then penetrate according to a wider business scope.
Reliability and security aspects of disaggregated transport networking gears
The following are CSPs’ responses about reliability and security:
- 57% of CSPs responded that they have no doubts or mistrust of the reliability and security mechanisms of disaggregated IP transport network gears
- 20% of respondents still worry about the reliability and security capabilities of emerging white box vendors’ solutions and products
Figure 12: Reliability and security of disaggregated transport network routing and switching gears
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
The Omdia research found that most emerging white box vendors adhere to the strict rules and mechanisms of ensuring the highest level of security and high-grade reliability of their products and solutions. They know their direct competition is with incumbent tier 1 IP routing vendors who have already proved the security and performance reliability of their products and solutions to CSPs. However, this is not the end of the story—emerging white box vendors need to brainstorm and follow in the footsteps of incumbent IP routing vendors to innovate in-house security mechanisms at the IP silicon or chipset level for various cyberattacks. From a reliability perspective, emerging white box vendors will face fierce competition from incumbent rival vendors to meet the highest key performance indicators (KPIs) and reliability in 5G, the cloud, digital transformation, industrial automation, and the upcoming metaverse era.
Disaggregated cell site gateways (DCSGs) for 5G backhaul at scale
The following are how CSPs responded to reliability and security:
- 22% of respondents answered that they have already started deploying in 2022
- 45% of respondents replied that they plan to use DSCSGs in 2023
Figure 13: Deploying DCSG for 5G backhaul
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
The Omdia telco market research found that CSPs strongly believe that DCSGs can expedite the 5G IP transport network backhauling. That is one of the reasons why many CSPs around the globe, especially in Europe and Africa, started using DCSG for cell site routers for low capex, its openness, and to get rid of proprietary vendor solutions. DCSG implementation is, to some extent, a competitive market threat for incumbent IP routing vendors; thus, DCSG implementation can grab their existing market shares in the cell site router (access router) market.
Which CSPs are most likely to implement DCSGs for 5G backhaul at scale
The following are how CSPs responded regarding reliability and security:
- 34% of all CSPs, irrespective of their scale of operation, prefer to implement DCSGs for their 5G backhaul projects
- 48% of CSPs are eager to go for ultra-low-cost bare metal solutions as early as possible to drive substantial capex savings and avoid vendor dependencies
Figure 14: Which CSPs are most interested in deploying DCSG for 5G backhaul
Source: Omdia
Omdia analysis and recommendations
Overall, CSPs, including small or large businesses, are interested in deploying DCSG for 5G backhaul. The reason for doing this is a quick way of provisioning 5G cell sites without getting them locked in vendors’ costly offerings and proprietary solutions. However, 18% of CSPs aggressively deploy DCSG for major 5G cell site backhauling since 2021, setting their strategy for complete end-to-end network openness and disaggregation. Additionally, 48% of CSPs are still waiting for a low-cost DCSG solution and the successful testing and implementation of tier 1 CSPs in their networks.
Lastly, the massive adoption of network disaggregation, especially DCSGs, is still an issue without some complete standardization and testing from standardization bodies. The Open Compute Project’s (OCP) and Telecom Infra Project’s (TIP) commendable work in testing DCSG solutions in their laboratories and building the overall standardization ecosystem is worth mentioning.
Conclusion Despite knowing the challenges of implementing disaggregation and welcoming emerging white box vendors, CSPs are confident and poised about the secrets of network disaggregation and openness. As shown below, it is an “open secret” that an open compute disaggregated transport network is grand and much attractive that frees CSPs from vendor and optics lock-in and proprietary solutions. It drives a sustainable capex and opex savings and promotes a faster pace of IP network products and solutions innovation.
Figure 15: To what extent do you agree with the concluding survey polls?
Source: Omdia
However, despite these tremendous CSP agreements, benefits, and attractiveness of IP transport disaggregation, this does not mean that destination is just a few steps away for both CSPs and emerging white box vendors. Incumbent tier 1s are all set and very aware of the developing ecosystem of network disaggregation and made aggressive strategies for intense combat and intelligent strategic retaliation with more viable and innovative solutions for network transformation.
Incumbent tier 1 IP transport gear vendors are leveraging their long-standing strategic partnerships with CSPs. They are ready to meet the complex RFX network openness compliance and multi-vendor interoperability requirements. If that is the case and tier 1 vendors can successfully meet CSPs’ open computing requirements, the sustainability and business success of emerging white box vendors’ solutions will be short and questionable. It will leave them orphaned in the developing stage of the network disaggregation ecosystem.
Appendix
Further reading
Omdia highly recommends the following for further detailed reading and analysis about the network disaggregation’s SWOT analysis, market situation, analyst detailed recommendations, etc.:
“Disaggronomics:” The Story of Distributed Disaggregated Transport Networks (July 2021)
“Distributed disaggregated routing embraces open transport network architecture” (April 2021)
Author
Sameer Ashfaq Malik, Senior Principal Analyst, SP Switch Routing
