TFD ONUG 2014 – Glue Networks

One of the round table discussions that was had at the Tech Field Day event at the Open Networking User Group was with Glue Networks. They offer a solution that addresses some of the challenges experience in the WAN optimization space. Without further ado, I will jump right into my views on the idea of the product and where I think the advantages and disadvantages exist today.

The first thing I took away from the discussion was the use of the phrase ‘Software Defined Networks’ when talking about the product that Glue has to offer. While they offer what looks like a competent product in the realm of configuration automation and orchestration, I don’t know if I would qualify that as ‘SDN’. Though, SDN is such an ambiguous term today, that we can probably deem it just that and be completely fine with it. I don’t necessarily qualify configuration management as ‘SDN’ in respect to how it’s being done in this case as its just templating and revision control, but if done right through APIs and libraries (OnePK in Cisco world), it could push the industry forward.

All that said, the auto provisioning and configuration management piece of the product is something that is definitely useful for companies that have 10’s or maybe 100’s of remote sites as the automation of provisioning and configuration of the device is definitely a time saver, but for organizations that have less than 10 remote sites, I don’t know if the capital increase will be offset by the operational savings on such a small number of remote sites. Though this is without seeing costs for the product.

While Glue offers a what seems to be a lot in the provisioning and configuration automation aspect of their product, I can’t really find a reason to add more sku’s to orders for another piece of software for such a corner case use, meaning companies that have a small(er) number of remote sites. Especially when we are able to perform the same configuration templating using open source tooling like python and jinja2, and configuration management frameworks like Ansible. WAN optimization is an interesting animal as well, a lot of talk was had in the realm of being able to intelligently deploy Performance Routing (PfR) without having a brain scientist on staff, but I haven’t really ever seen organizations who have had the time and patience to deploy, care and feed PfR. So, if there are any gains to be made, they would be made there.

Overall, I think the cost benefit analysis would have to be made by the architecture/engineering team on whether or not the capital expense for the product would be worth the operational impact that it would have on the environment. If you know me, then you know that I’m a firm believer in the architect having a foot in both realms (business and technical) and cost does come into play when deploying solutions. But, if you’re currently looking to throw money at a homunculus of a WAN and are looking for what seem to be quick results for minimal effort for implementation, then I would definitely give Glue a look as they know their market, their position, and their play quite well. The product looks to be polished and could definitely give you a hand if you have a large WAN and a small network staff, which we all know is a constant.

Advertisements

One thought on “TFD ONUG 2014 – Glue Networks

  1. Pingback: TFD ONUG 2014 – Glue Networks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s