Network Functions Virtualization vs Hardware Networking
Networking has come a long way since the time of physical routers, switches and firewalls. Today, we have a more flexible and efficient alternative called Network Functions Virtualization (NFV). This may lead some to question the relevance of hardware networking in the modern world. In this article, we'll take a look at both approaches and compare them on various parameters.
What is Network Functions Virtualization?
NFV is an approach to network design that involves virtualizing network functions such as routers, firewalls, load balancers and other network appliances. The virtualized network functions can then be deployed on standard off-the-shelf hardware such as servers, storage devices and switches. This approach aims to replace specialized hardware with virtualized network functions that are more flexible, scalable and cost-effective.
What is Hardware Networking?
Hardware networking is the traditional approach to network design that uses specialized physical routers, switches and firewalls. It involves the installation of hardware appliances at various points in the network infrastructure to perform specific network functions. This approach has been dominant in the industry for several years, but with the advent of NFV, it has begun to face competition.
Comparison
Cost
Cost is a significant consideration when choosing between hardware networking and NFV. Hardware networking requires the purchase of specialized hardware appliances that can be costly, particularly for small and medium-sized companies. NFV, on the other hand, utilizes off-the-shelf hardware which can reduce the cost of network infrastructure considerably. A report by ResearchAndMarkets predicts that the adoption of NFV will lead to a global reduction of $2.7 billion in networking capital expenditure by 2022.
Scalability
The scalability of a network infrastructure is another essential factor to consider. NFV enables network administrators to scale their network functions up and down with ease, depending on the requirements at any given time. In contrast, hardware networking may require the purchase of additional hardware appliances to scale up, making it less cost-effective.
Performance
Performance is another crucial consideration, particularly in high-performance environments like data centers or large corporate networks. Some experts argue that dedicated hardware appliances may outperform virtualized network functions. However, others claim that advancements in virtualization technology have made virtualized network functions just as good as physical appliances for most use cases.
Management
The final consideration is network management. NFV enables simplified network management, which can lead to more efficient administration and less complex configurations. In contrast, hardware networking requires specialized skills to manage, particularly in large or complex environments.
Conclusion
Overall, both hardware networking and NFV have their advantages and disadvantages. While hardware networking may still outperform NFV in some use cases, the cost savings, scalability and easy management of NFV make it an attractive option for many organizations. It is up to individual organizations to decide which approach best suits their needs.
References: