Survey Results
Roz Roseboro, Senior Analyst
1
Survey Results Roz Roseboro, Senior Analyst 1 How familiar are you - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Survey Results Roz Roseboro, Senior Analyst 1 How familiar are you with the OPNFV project? 28% 72% Very familiar Somewhat familiar Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218 What type of company do you work for? Fixed-line telecom
Roz Roseboro, Senior Analyst
1
28% 72% Very familiar Somewhat familiar
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
Fixed-line telecom network
14% Mobile operator with network assets 13% Converged operator (fixed and mobile network assets) 20% Virtual network operator (no network assets) 2% Cable network operator 7% Cloud services provider 4% Other network operator 3% Software vendor 16% Hardware vendor 13% Other vendor 6% Other 2%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
U.S. 67% Canada 5% Central/South America 2% Europe 13% Middle East 2% Africa 1% Asia Pacific (including Australia) 10%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
Corporate management 10% R&D technical strategy 25% Network planning 9% Engineering 20% Product/Service Management 14% Sales and marketing 14% Customer support 3% Software developer 2% Other 3%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
Less than $50 million 17% $50 million to $100 million 9% $100 million to $500 million 11% $500 million to $1 billion 7% $1 billion to $5 billion 17% More than $5 billion 39%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
It is actively involved and contributes directly to the project 31% It actively follows the project, but is not contributing yet 45% It does not currently follow the project, but that may change over time 20% It has no plans to follow or contribute to the project 4%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
I am actively involved and contribute directly to the project 13% I am actively following the project, but am not contributing yet 54% I am not currently following the project, but that may change over time 32% I have no plans to follow or engage with the project 1%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=218
Increased 69% Decreased 2% Stayed the same 29%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=140
More operator support 16% More vendor support 17% More tangible output 17% More mature underlying technology 20% Better alignment of project scope with my company’s priorities 26% Nothing would motivate me to increase my level of engagement with OPNFV 2% Other 2%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
3% 4% 8% 10% 11% 12% 20% 21% 26% 28% 29% 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Other Ceph Open Contrail DPDK Open Data Plane ONOS KVM OpenvSwitch I'm not involved in any other open source projects OpenDaylight Linux OpenStack
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
We have no NFV strategy planned at this point 10% We are now developing
34% We have an NFV strategy but have not started executing it yet 11% We are in the testing/proof
regarding NFV 26% We are in production deployment with NFV 19%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
Already deploying now Now testing Plan to deploy in the future Unsure about deploying No plans to deploy OPNFV reference architecture 11% 22% 37% 26% 5% Open source SDN controller 15% 25% 39% 17% 4% OpenStack 23% 27% 32% 14% 4% OpenvSwitch 18% 16% 32% 26% 8% KVM 22% 21% 21% 26% 9% Containers 12% 21% 28% 28% 11%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=202-210
Very important Somewhat important Not important Don’t know OpenStack 68% 24% 1% 8% OpenvSwitch 47% 33% 5% 15% Carrier Grade Linux 42% 33% 10% 15% OpenDaylight 40% 39% 7% 14% KVM 37% 35% 10% 18% DPDK 28% 34% 13% 26% Open Data Plane 23% 38% 11% 27% ONOS 20% 43% 12% 25% Ceph 13% 42% 10% 36% Open Contrail 12% 35% 25% 29%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=200-213
Very important Somewhat important Not important Don’t know OPNFV 58% 32% 4% 7% OpenDaylight 42% 41% 7% 11% ONOS 20% 43% 13% 24% OpenNetworking Forum 34% 40% 14% 13% ETSI NFV ISG 45% 35% 9% 12% Linux Foundation 34% 48% 8% 10%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=206-213
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=211
20% 35% 37% 3% 3% 2% OPNFV will bring clarity to the vendors developing NFV solutions OPNFV will be critical for operators to achieve their NFV goals and bring value to the industry OPNFV will help other open source projects develop solutions appropriate for operators OPNFV is not addressing the issues that matter to my company OPNFV is over-reaching and may struggle to accomplish all of its stated goals OPNFV is an interesting science experiment that will have minimal impact on the industry
37% 38% 39% 51% 62% 74% Increased understanding of underlying technologies Higher-quality products Reduced risk Accelerated adoption More rapid deployment of NFV Easier integration 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
Overall
36% 38% 33% 47% 60% 69% 36% 35% 47% 56% 65% 83%
Increased understanding of underlying technologies Higher-quality products Reduced risk Accelerated adoption More rapid deployment of NFV Easier integration 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Vendors Service Providers
18
By type
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
Very important Somewhat important Not important Performance testing/benchmarking 70% 27% 3% Systems integration/reference platform 69% 30% 1% Functional testing 63% 36% 1% Influence on upstream projects 37% 58% 5% Pharos test-bed labs 28% 67% 5%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=209-212
Strongly agree 37% Somewhat agree 49% Neither agree nor disagree 12% Somewhat disagree 2% Strongly disagree 0%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
Strongly agree 20% Somewhat agree 45% Neither agree nor disagree 29% Somewhat disagree 5% Strongly disagree 1%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=213
4% 24% 30% 32% 37% 38% 47% 55% Other Switching cost Lack of skill set to operate virtualized environment Security concerns Software stability Availability of commercial solutions Unclear ROI Integration of multi-vendor solutions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=211
Overall
4% 30% 34% 34% 40% 47% 47% 57% 6% 15% 23% 29% 34% 21% 48% 51%
Other Switching cost Lack of skill set to operate virtualized environment Security concerns Software stability Availability of commercial solutions Unclear ROI Integration of multi-vendor solutions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Vendors Service Providers
23
By type
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=211
2% 21% 29% 30% 32% 32% 33% 38% 43% Other Lack of resources with relevant skill set Lack of operator commitment Lack of buy-in across the vendor community Awareness of the project Concerns about open source technology Unclear strategy Industry perception of the project Managing competing company agendas 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=212
Overall
2% 17% 25% 29% 36% 34% 38% 37% 38% 3% 30% 35% 30% 26% 28% 24% 43% 49%
Other Lack of resources with relevant skill set Lack of operator commitment Lack of buy-in across the vendor community Awareness of the project Concerns about open source technology Unclear strategy Industry perception of the project Managing competing company agendas 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Vendors Service Providers
25
By type
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=212
Critical Important, but not critical Marginal Not important at all Containers 26% 55% 18% 1% Management/orchestration 61% 32% 7% 0.5% Security 75% 21% 4% 0% OSS/BSS integration 54% 37% 8% 2% Skills training 39% 49% 11% 2% VNF interoperability 54% 37% 9% 0.5%
Source: Heavy Reading survey, October 2015, n=207-211
27