There’s a lot of talk in the networking industry around disaggregation. The basic premise is that by decoupling the operating system from the hardware you can gain the freedom to run the devices you want from any vendor with the software that does what you want it to do. You can standardize or mix-and-match as you see fit. You gain the ability to direct the way your network works and you control how things will be going forward.

To me it sounds an awful lot like the trend of “cutting the cord” or unsubscribing from cable TV service and picking and choosing how you want to consume your content. Ten years ago the idea of getting rid of your cable TV provider was somewhat crazy. In 2021 it seems almost a given that you no long need to rely on your cable provider for entertainment. However, just like with the landscape of the post-cable cutting world, I think disaggregation is going to lead to a vastly different outcome than expected.

TNSTAAFL

Let’s get one thing out of the way up front: This idea of “freedom” when it comes to disaggregation and cord cutting is almost always about money. Yes, you want the ability to decide what software runs on your system. You don’t want to have unnecessary features or channels in your lineup. But why? I think maybe 5% of the community is worried about code quality or attack surfaces. The rest? They want to pay less for the software or hardware by unbundling the two. Instead of getting better code for their switches they’re really just chasing a lower cost per unit to run things. If that weren’t the case, why do so many of these NOS vendors run on Linux?

Yes, that feels like a bit of shot but reality speaks volumes over the pleasantries we often spout. The value of disaggregation is a smaller bottom line. Code quality can be improved over time with the proper controls in place. Hell, you could even write your own NOS given the right platform and development resources. However, people don’t want to build the perfect NOS or help vendors with the code issues. They want someone to build 90% of the perfect NOS and then sell it to them cheaply so they can run it on a cheap whitebox switch.

This is an issue that is faced by developers the world over. Look at the number of apps in the various mobile app stores that have a free entry point or are a “Freemium” business model. You don’t pay up front but as soon as you find a feature you really like it’s locked behind a subscription model. Why? Because one-time purchases don’t fund development. If everyone buys your app and then expects you to keep providing features for it and not just bug fixes, where does the investment for that development come from? Work requires resources – time or money. If you’re not getting paid for something you have to invest more time to make it work the way you want.

Vendors of disaggregated systems are finding themselves in a similar quandary. How do we charge enough for the various features we want to put into the system to be able to develop new features? The common way I see this done is to put in the most basic features that customers would want and then wait for someone to ask for something to be added. If the customer is asking for it the odds are good they’ll be willing to pay for it. You can even get them to buy your software now and sign an agreement that you’ll include the new feature in a few weeks in order to be sure your development resources aren’t wasted.

There are other ways, such as relying on single merchant silicon platforms or developing tight relationships with other vendors in the market, but ultimately it comes back to the question of resources. What are you willing to invest to make this happen? And what are you willing to accept as a cost that must be paid to get what you think you want?

The Buffet of Plenty…of Stuff You Don’t Want

The other aspect of this comparison is how the cable TV market responded to cord cutting. People started leaving cable TV for apps like Netflix and Hulu because they were cheaper than paying for a full cable subscription and had most of the content that people wanted. For the few pieces that weren’t available there were workarounds. By and large, you could find most of what you wanted in an auxiliary app when you occasionally wanted it.

So is this how things are today? Or did the market shift to the response of what customer behavior was? I think you’ll find that you’re not paying a single lump sum for content if you cut the cord for your cable provider. However, you are paying a large portion of that investment in separate apps that offer a portion of the content on-demand. And that’s why separating things is going to lead to new market dynamics.

The first behavior we saw was every media company coming up with their own app to host content. Instead of having a Disney channel on cable you now had a number of Disney apps that replicated the content channels. Later they merged into a single app with all the content. But was it all the content you wanted? Or was it all the content they owned? The drive for companies to create apps was not to offer customers a way to consume content along with their existing subscriptions. It was to provide a landing page for content you couldn’t find anywhere else.

That’s where phase two kicks in. Once you’ve created the destination, you need to make it the only place to be. That means removing content from other locations. Netflix started losing content when the creators started taking control of their own content. Soon it was necessary to create custom content to replace what was lost. Now, instead of buying a cable subscription and getting all the channels you had to sign up for five different apps, each comprising one or two of the channels you used to watch. Disney content is in the Disney app. NBC content is in another. The idea of channel surfing is gone. The back catalog of content added to the apps served more to entice people to keep their subscriptions during droughts of fresh new content.

How does this whole model break down in the enterprise? Well, going back to our earlier discussion about features being added to devices, what are you going to have to do to get new functions in your operating system? Are you going to require the vendor to write them on their schedule? Are you going to use a separate app or platform? Why should the vendor support some random feature that might not get much adoption and would take a significant amount of resources to build? Why not just make you do it yourself?

The idea is that you gain freedom and cheaper software. The hope is that you can build an enterprise network for half of what it would normally cost. The reality is that you’re going to gain less functionality and spend more time integrating things together on your own instead of just putting in a turnkey solution. And yes, there are people out there that are nodding their heads and saying they would love to do this. They want the perfect network with the perfect cheap NOS and whitebox hardware. But do you want this to be your only job for the rest of your career?

Once you build things the way you want them you become the only person that can work on them. You become the only source of support for your solution. If it’s a custom snowflake of a network you are the only person that can fix the snow issues. Traditional software and hardware may be unwieldy and difficult to troubleshoot but you can also call a support line where people have been paid to get training on how to implement and fix issues. If you built it yourself you’re the person that has to pick up the phone to fix it. Unless you want to train your team to support it too. Which takes time and money. So your savings between the two solutions are going to evaporate. And if you want the NOS vendor or the hardware supplier to support more functions to make it all easier you’re going to drive the price of the equipment up. So instead of writing one big check to the old guard you’re writing a bunch of little ones to every part of the new infrastructure you helped create.

Tom’s Take

I know it sounds like I’m not a fan of all this disaggregation stuff. In fact, I am a huge proponent of it. I just don’t buy the “freedom” excuse. My business background helps me understand the resource contention issues. My history of supporting snowflake implementations reminds me that you have to be able to turn your work over to someone else at some point in the future. Disaggregation has a lot of positive effects. You can mix and match your software and hardware and make it much easier to support for your own purposes. You no longer have to take a completed project and find workarounds to fit it to your needs. You get what you want. But don’t think you’re going to be able to get exactly what you need without some work of your own. Just like the cable cord cutting craze, you’re going to find out that you’re getting something totally different in the short term and a much different consumption model when the market shifts to the demands of the consumers. Don’t get complacent with your solutions and be ready to adapt when the suppliers force your hand.