So you are in a sprint mode for deploying virtual CPE ( Customer Premises Equipment)?<\/p>\n
You, as an operator, want it\u00a0 FAST. As you want to cut your CAPEX\/OPEX or perhaps you want to provision services faster.<\/p>\n
But, something is holding you:<\/p>\n
Perhaps you are confused by the industry\u2019s discussion on what is the right strategy for deployment. I.e. should you place virtual CPE functions on a customer site OR run them from a cloud in a central location?<\/p>\n
After all, different vendors approach you explaining what is the best approach (in line with their product strategy)<\/p>\n
But, let\u2019s face it!<\/p>\n
ETSI specifications allow placing virtual CPE functions anywhere. They can be located anywhere as long as the functions serve their purpose.<\/p>\n
Now that all approaches are correct, what strategy you should follow?<\/p>\n
This blog attempts to make a point that it is best for an operator to deploy virtual CPE in phases. They can start with the least disruptive approach and then move slowly to a full-scale NFV.<\/p>\n
To understand this approach, let\u2019s bring up the discussion of the location of virtual CPE, again.<\/p>\n
Should virtual CPE reside at customer site (also called Edge vCPE) with all the virtual functions (VNFs) including routing security, firewall, WAN optimization placed there, perhaps running on an x86 server or a white box?<\/p>\n
Or a Centralized virtual CPE strategy (also called Cloud vCPE) is better? When an operator\u2019s data center\/cloud hosts all customer functions.<\/p>\n
Or a third approach which is also called Hybrid virtual CPE ? That is, some functions run from a customer site and moving all other functions to the operator\u2019s cloud.<\/p>\n
On the face of it, the Edge model seems attractive.<\/p>\n
First, from a cost point of view, it is based on the pay-as-you-grow model. Invest at the customer site, once business comes. This is in contrast to Cloud model; which needs some scale of the data center (x86 servers)\u00a0 established from day one as a shared resource for an unforeseen number of customers.<\/p>\n
Second, the operators are already used to hardware CPE at a customer site and virtualizing the same functions on x86 server at the same location may be easy to accept and least disruptive for the operation and engineering people. Not to forget that the performance would be predictable in terms\u00a0 of latency, QoS or security (which may be an issue if all the functions are moved to the cloud).<\/p>\n
Third, unless there is a full fledge Management and Orchestration (MANO)<\/a> in place (as the standards work is still in progress), there is a risk of going with the vendor preferred open interfaces for MANO. There is no guarantee that these open interfaces can gather industry momentum in future or become part of a larger ecosystem that you can benefit from. This risk is somewhat mitigated with an edge model as you may not need full-scale MANO initially. And the vendor\u2019s experience with the FCAPS (Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security) for the physical CPE can help him manage the virtual CPE.<\/p>\n Come to think of it!<\/p>\n NFV is still in its infancy. The FCAPS standards are not yet finalized. Selecting the centralized or the Hybrid approach would mean running elastic services in the cloud and going to a vendor\u2019s specific management and orchestration (MANO). In this blog here<\/a>, I argue the risks of going\u00a0 as an early adopter for NFV.<\/p>\n