“Content strategy is to copywriting as information architecture is to design. I find this analogy to be especially encouraging because six years ago, as the crest of the first wave of the web was about to break, people had no idea what “information architecture meant.” – “Content Strategy: The Philosophy of Data” by Rachel Lovinger
“Content strategy refers to the planning, development, and management of content—written or in other media. The term is particularly common in web development since the late 1990s. It is a recognized field in user experience design, but also draws interest from adjacent communities such as content management, business analysis, and technical communication.” – Wikipedia.
These two mind maps double as modeling graphs to help visualize the thinking behind a brainstorming exercise. The objective being content distribution and promotion of a new digital asset.
Both charts present a variety of concepts to facilitate a discussion on defining goals, utilizing tools and channels and, most importantly, outlining options and related trade-offs.
In this particular case, the asset was originally created in an experiential marketing project. It, therefore, involves interactive content successfully consumed in face-to-face conversations, which engage target customers and key influencers.
At the time of writing this, we are looking at content adaptation and augmentation for online distribution. Addressing self-service prompts questions on the right content mix to generate new leads. This now entails the development of additional content accounting for the needs of a different experience.
Your comments and feedback are very much appreciated. Feel free to email and/or contact me on LinkedIn as you see fit. Thanks again.
By the way, in case you wondered, the title of this (as well as other posts) is “high tech marketing” only because that’s the industry I work in, but the above insights are relevant to other sectors.
Working on the diffusion of innovations and marketing emerging technologies presents known challenges:
- fast evolving contexts
- shifting environments
- market timing and uncertain speed of adoption
- technical trade-offs leading to open dilemmas
- high signal-to-noise ratio often cluttered by chatter, hype and vaporware
- legacy systems’ last gasps given improvements and existing economies of scale
In this context, it is worth considering the following:
A – Thinking clearly and mastering clarity:
- Depicting and differentiating between what’s “state of the art” and readily available vs. concepts and future opportunities belonging to the “art of the possible.”
- Spelling out “incremental innovation” based on performance (technical, operational, financial) improvements when compared to today’s environment.
- Spelling out “disruptive innovation” exposing new unique capabilities which cannot be achieved with conventional and alternative solutions.
B – Thinking differently and mastering the element of surprise:
- “Abstracting out complexity” by striking a balance between Albert Einstein’s (above) and Arthur C. Clark’s (below) statements on simplicity and sophistication.
- Delivering the “wow factor” based on elegant know-how, technical prowess and by appealing to unequivocal easy to follow logic.
- Delivering the “cool factor” based on engaging simplicity and memorable experiences creating positive emotions.
C – Thinking about your audience and mastering the conversation:
- Understanding their journey, business, haves/have-nots, pain-points, behaviors, motivations, aspirations and decision making.
- Recognizing what belongs to “need to know” versus “good to know,” what’s core vs. added value to stay away from self-defeating information overload.
- Designing best of “breed solutions” in the context of the lifecycle of “end-to-end” systems.
This is not a comprehensive list, but a quick effort to synthesize a handful of guiding principles proven to work in past projects. As usual, I will welcome your emails to continue the discussion. In the meantime, I hope that some of the above are of interest.
“As network hardware begins to be replaced by software, carriers are expected to save money and benefit greatly from new levels of flexibility related to hosting their network in private and virtual private clouds. Similarly, SDN is an architecture that separates the control and data planes of the network and automatically looks at flows in the network, understanding the requirements of those different flows and using the network to provide those flows with the appropriate bandwidth and other network resources.”
“This applications-first networking mindset is a significant change from how networks are designed and work today. It takes the traditional siloed approach to networking and effectively lays it on its side. This move to software-based telco environments will not only help incumbent providers become more agile and adapt to market trends and subscriber demands more effectively, but will open up the market to new players who may not have had such deep pockets needed to develop proprietary hardware. It will allow new carriers to quickly scale and compete, as they won’t have to load up on costly central office equipment to get started.”
This time last week I was in Las Vegas participating in the Software Telco Congress 2014. I would like to thank those of you attending my live talk and was really glad to benefit from a full house. I would also like to thank Frost & Sullivan’s Ronald Gruia for his encouraging feedback and positive public remarks from the podium as well as our follow up conversations over social media. I am now taking care of incoming requests for a copy of the presentation.
I just uploaded the my file: Slideshare reports 110+ views from the get go, coupled with 1,500+ views for my set of presentations on NFV (Network Functions Virtualization). A quick web search for “NFV Economics” is listing these slides’ link among the top 10 results already. Additionally, it is worth noticing that only two other items on that list, such as Prof. Economides’ video clip and slides, happen to fully focus on this one specific topic. See his video clip below.
Moreover, this blog, innovarista.org, is now showing among the top 20 search results when looking for “NFV Business Case” instead. Given that NFV is an emerging and highly specialized niche market, these few metrics happen to be interesting enough at the time of writing this. Thanks again for your interest in my writings.
TMC’s (Technology Marketing Corporation) crafted a robust event agenda packed with relevant and timely topics delivered by engaging speakers with compelling insights, which I was flattered to be with. I am grateful to Alcatel-Lucent’s Darlene M. Cetrulo for all of her support and CloudBand Consulting’s Joaquin de la Vega Gonzalez-Sicilia and Andras Menyhei for the materials covering DNS’ business case. Last but not least, I appreciate TMC’s Erik K. Linask, Group Editorial Director, communications in advance to this event, as well as Peter Bernstein, Senior Editor, who moderated the panel on “Making the Transition to Software.”
By the way, here is Prof. Nicholas Economides’ video where he briefly discusses NFV and SDN economics in a 15 minute clip. This recording highlights flexibility and OPEX (Operational Expenses) savings to begin with. Additionally, a software centric approach should foster more innovation and higher sophistication given the right APIs, interoperability, ease of upgrade and graceful scalability in place. On the hardware side, Prof Economides outlines CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) savings driven by COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) gear, coupled with application multi-tenancy and, possibly, shared resources by network operators and service providers.
Around minute 10, he presents results from a preliminary analysis pointing to 30-70% cumulative savings when compared to today’s system costs which, give or take, happens to be the ball park (49-70%) shown by the DNS’s figures disclosed in my presentation. In any case, we are taking about quite significant double digit savings from the offset.
From left to right:
- Upper row: Software Telco Congress breakout room entrance, ITExpo plenary session, exhibit hall.
- Lower row: Opendaylight’s Neela Jaques, Qualisystem’s Alex Henthorn-Iwane, Alcatel-Lucent’s Jose de Francisco, Brocade’s Andrew Coward, Overture’s Mark Durrett, and AT&T’s Michael Troiano.
Related posts at innovarista.org:
- Speaking at Software Telco Congress.
- NFV Business Case Digest, July 2014.
- NFV Business Case: DNS Study.
- Approaching NFV Readiness and Maturity Levels.
- NFV @ IEEE CQR 2014.
- IEEE CQR 2014: Communication Systems Quality & Reliability in the Cloud Age.
- Cloud at NettworkWorld IT Roadmap.
- My Mobile World Congress week in pictures.
- MWC 2014: NFV’s Defining Moment.
- Gearing up for MWC 2014.
- Demystifying the Fast Emerging Carrier Cloud.
- NFV: Moving from Vision to Reality.
My previous post, NFV Business Case Digest, shares a variety of sources commenting on what it takes to deliver the business case for NFV (Network Functions Virtualization). I am now focusing on findings recently presented by Alcatel-Lucent’s CloudBand Consulting Practice and Ecosystem Program.
This 30 minute video features Joaquin De La Vega Gonzalez-Sicilia and Valery Noto‘s introduction and recap, which can be viewed on the corporate YouTube channel. Here is the link to the project’s whitepaper: “Business Case for Moving DNS to the Cloud.”
I checked out the “transcript” feature on YouTube, but quite a bit of the stuff appears to be garbled. So, I’m volunteering a transcript (below) though not a 100% verbatim and I’m adding a bit of color commentary here and there. These charts also show a more recent presentation version. I will be referring to this post in my incoming presentation at Software Telco Congress on Tuesday.
Minute 01:53 – This study was performed in cooperation with at tier 1 service provider planning to replace existing DNS (Domain Name System) service infrastructure as it reaches end of life. This case study was set to address whether migrating to an NFV model would improve TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) compared to simply replacing them, which the report’s key findings confirm. The existing DNS deployment is comprised of a total of 104 servers. The team defined two options:
- [A] Replacing the existing infrastructure with new COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) x86 servers and keeping the current PMO (Present Mode of Operations).
- [B] Implementing the NFV model with 11 small CloudBand Nodes instead (132 servers), and CBMS (CloudBand Management System) with a new FMO (Future Mode of Operations).
This analysis looks at OPEX (Operating Expenditures) such as: capacity growth, software upgrading and healing processes. The initial focus was to first understand how these processes were carried on under the current PMO. New efficiencies under the FMO leveraging CloudBand impact items such as ‘lead time’ and ‘manpower’ given the introduction of task automation under option. OPEX’s infrastructure related costs include: floor space, power, cooling and maintenance. CAPEX (Capital Expenditures) focuses on procuring hardware infrastructure.
The main finding is that even a simple application such as DNS would benefit enormously from running on an NFV platform: processes are greatly simplified with leaner and automated operations, OPEX and CAPEX are reduced significantly, all contributing to dramatic TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) savings coupled with unparalleled operational and business agility.
I would like to add that ‘agility’ mitigates risks and opportunity costs. Conventional architectures force network operators to make decisions among apparently mutually exclusive opportunities. This is due to systems that are complex and costly to operate and scale. Basically, this means forgoing market opportunities due to structural shortcomings rather than by making strategic decisions, which raises opportunity costs and undermines competitiveness.
Additionally, the fact that a network operator can get the NFV journey started with a one application, DNS in this case, helps with delivering an early success story. Network operators of a variety of sizes can reap many of the benefits enabled by working with software defined environments, as proven by enterprise cloud computing already.
Minute 05:20 – Let’s start by highlighting 6.8 to $9.8 million in savings when migrating to option [B] vs. option [A].
Under option [A] a network operator’s investment in infrastructure is typically spent on dedicated systems only running DNS. However, with option [B]’s NFV model different network functions, e.g. DNS, AAA (Authentication, Authorization and Accounting), PCRF (Policy and Charging Rules Function) just to name a few, can share infrastructure and tap into a pool of resources and spare capacity.
An application multi-tenant environment makes the most of available resources and minimizes costly duplication. Therefore, option [B]’s best scenario is one where the underlying infrastructure costs are allocated across a given set of applications based on what they each consume. This is a utility business model. The cost related to the capacity (compute, storage, networking, etc.) used by DNS delivers the $9.8 million in savings shown above. From a DNS standpoint, everything else is idle capacity cost that under the NFV model should be considered separately. That is capacity that the service provider would manage to achieve high server utilization levels to maximize ROA (Return on Asset).
Nonetheless, saving $6.8 million is impressive enough. This figure assumes virtualization and automation, though the servers would only run DNS. That is the ‘no-multi-tenancy’ sub-option.
Minute 08:07 – The team analyzed 6 different categories, 5 are related to OPEX as shown above, CAPEX focusing on hardware infrastructure.
This chart’s upper row outlines FMP’s:
- option [B1] – upper row – which involves no-multi-tenancy as the system is dedicated to running DNS only
- option [B2] – bottom row – factors multi-tenancy, where the infrastructure and platform are shared by several applications in addition to DNS.
Reading the figures:
- option [A] – PMO’s cost exceeds $14 million and is incurred with neither virtualizations nor cloud technologies, the same number is shown in both rows.
- option [B1] – in the no-multi-tenancy-scenario all of the costs are allocated to the DNS deployment: this amounts to $7.7 million, a 49% reduction.
- option [B2] – when the business case accounts for what DNS is planned to consume, the cost comes down to $4.5 million, an even more dramatic 70% reduction.
- The difference between [B1] and [B2] is the cost of idle capacity from a DNS’ business case viewpoint.
- Capacity growth process: a 48% reduction, there is no difference between [B1] and [B2]. The phases currently followed (PMO) by the service provider when scaling are: planning, ordering and all of the cabling, installation and configuration tasks performed on site. We need to single out year 1 in this 5 year planning period because new infrastructure is being deployed. However, under option [B] we leverage year one’s infrastructure to scale in subsequent years with VMs (Virtual Machines). Options [A] and [B] show similar lead times and costs in the first year. Option [B]’s NFV’s scaling makes a big difference in years 2+ when compared option [A]’s deployments based on just adding more hardware. FMO delivers up to a 98% reduction in lead time by downsizing tasks such as site surveys, which is kept down to verifying capacity using management tools already in place. There is no longer a need for installing new physical infrastructure. In contrast, adding more hardware takes, most typically, a lengthy supply chain process. Networking wise, there is a need for checking the availability of IP addresses but deploying applications is done automatically by means of recipes. That only takes minutes, opposed do weeks and even months for conventional deployments.
- Software upgrading process: (see next chart).
- Healing process: an 86% reduction with the stages being: identifying the failure, triggering and executing the solution and conducting root cause analysis to prevent future issues. CloudBand automatically identifies and troubleshoots by spinning up a VM taking things over from the one that’s either down or malfunctioning. No manpower, human error and/or process latency with automated healing. The operations team gets involved in post-mortem root case analysis and introducing FMO implies a learning curve.
- Floor space, power and cooling: a 58-89% reduction; load balancer virtualization eliminates half of the space required by DNS. Power consumption is also positively impacted by addressing growth with no additional additional servers. Calculations behind cooling factor a 1:1 correlation to power consumption: same savings assumed for power were applied to cooling.
- Software licenses and maintenance: 23-47% mostly thanks to a reduction in hardware maintenance, best results achieved when looking at multi-tenancy.
- Infrastructure: 56-88% where the most significant advantage entails lower footprint, higher utilization levels and ROA over TCO’s five year period.
Minute 20:11 – As an example, the software upgrading process entails: planning, obtaining the software, testing, installation and configuration with a 77% reduction in lead time.
Under PMO testing, installation and configuration can be complex and tedious. Today, this is usually done by taking advantage of opening maintenance windows at night. Lead time grows with expanding footprints as more servers have to be installed to meet growing traffic needs.
Under FMO there are no major changes with regards to planning and procurement, but testing does no longer require setting up new labs. This can be done with sandboxes instead. Installation and configuration deliver the bigger changes: generic recipes that automate the deployment are provided by the application (DSN) vendor which might require some customization work (a one time effort), then all servers can be automatically upgraded at once by pushing that recipe.
Last but not least, the whitepaper also includes a sensitivity analysis on page 16 which points to 35% in total savings when looking at a conservative scenario agreed upon with the service provider collaborating in this analysis.
Picture credits: charts courtesy of Alcatel-Lucent.
Telecommunications’ digital markets are growing rapidly. We have made remarkable advances toward enabling ubiquitous access to communication networks. Better yet, we get to experience wave after wave of surprisingly innovative services with no end in sight. Unfortunately, network providers claim that massive data traffic growth and unpredictable pent up demand are taxing infrastructure and management systems key to making things happen.
Network operators face situations where they are unable to expand capacity either fast or reliably enough. This is not just about generating demand for new services but, most importantly, meeting expectations for the one that presents itself. These network effects, in economic terms, are even more acute when addressing sudden viral consumption, specially when rich and increasingly immersive media is involved.
This discussion boils down to economics. The issue is that necessary investments in infrastructure upgrades and/or technology swaps can make scaling be cost prohibitive. Long story short, this happens when becoming a victim of one’s own success, as well as that of others’ such as OTT (Over The Top) third party services leveraging the network for transport. Truth to be said, some network operators have openly shared that there have also been a number of cases where [a] marketing myopia and [b] operational latency either blindly dismissed timely progress and/or caused missing a market’s new opportunity window altogether.
NFV (Network Functions Virtualization) is an emerging technology, a game changer which is thought out to come to the rescue. So far, NFV has been confined to the labs given the need to first explore “the art of the possible.” There also is a need for preventing unnecessary hype and vaporware from undermining the conversation. Rapid prototyping and PoC (Proof of Concept) illustrating NFV’s potential under a variety of use cases happen to genuinely excite the telecommunications industry. And this is true for both technical and business sides. Therefore, the following topics are now center stage to NFV’s evolving narrative:
- service delivery levels – validating claims for improved efficiencies and dynamic network behavior while meeting SLA (Service Level Agreements), resilience, availability and serviceability at any scale
- operations lifecycle – conducting real life operations in production environments with live networks, while coexisting with complex conventional and legacy systems
- business case – translating use cases into business cases, spelling what’s achieved at each stepping stone in the NFV journey, beyond just positioning the overall vision’s end goal and theoretical impact
I’m trying to get a pulse for where the industry is regarding the third item. The “digest” that follows is based on what’s publicly available online at the time of writing this: these are materials that everyone has access to. Please let me know if there were any other worth adding.
“Houston, we’ve had a problem” – Jim Lowell, Apollo 13.
“Competition in the telecommunications marketplace is becoming more intense, network operators are still struggling with disparate systems each with different access, delivery and presentation methods. Services often come from multiple vendors, and those who use these systems, spend valuable time accessing separate information services (…) networks are populated with a large and increasing variety of proprietary hardware appliances. To launch a new network service often requires: yet another variety of box, finding the space, power… leading to increasing costs of: real estate, energy, capital investment in infrastructure, hiring manpower (necessary to design, integrate and operate increasingly complex hardware-based appliances), refresh cost (hardware based appliances rapidly reach end of life, requiring refresh cost, reintegration cost, deploy cycle to be repeated with little or no revenue benefit).” “Understanding the Business Case for Network Functions Virtualization” by calsoftlabs.
“[Today] a particular function is scaled up by adding the exact card for that function, and when you run out of room in the box, you’ve got to install and configure another box. What NFV promises is freedom from boxes, in a sense. You’d still need equipment, but a function could grow by being activated in as many instances as necessary. ‘That’s the problem. We’re running at box scaling rules and we have to get to Web scale,” Weldon said (…) Virtualization is important because it’s happening on the data-center side (…) NFV sometimes gets described as an attempt to bring cheaper hardware into telecom. But the real benefits are in scaling, not penny-pinching. By escaping that box paradigm and working on a virtualized basis, operators would be able to deploy functions more quickly, and scale them up and down at will.” “Alcatel-Lucent CTO States the Case for NFV,” and interview with Marcus Weldon by LightReading.
“What a wonderful world” – Louis Armstrong recording.
“Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) is a telecom led initiative that aims to utilize standard IT virtualization technology to consolidate many telco network equipment types onto industry standard high volume servers, switches and storage. NFV involves implementing network functions in software that can run on a range of industry standard server hardware, and that can be moved to, or instantiated in, various locations in the network as required (…) with a promise to drive significant CapEx and OpEx reductions. NFV is poised to transform the entire telco infrastructure ecosystem. Mind Commerce estimates that global spending on NFV solutions will grow at a CAGR of 46% between 2014 and 2019. NFV revenues will reach $1.3 Billion by end of 2019 (…) Early NFV deployments will target virtualization of the mobile core (EPC) and IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) services.” “The Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) Market: Business Case, Market Analysis & Forecasts 2014-2019” by Mind Commerce.
“The telecom industry is at the edge of a major paradigm shift and moving closer to IT industry practices and scale economies. This is driven by digitalization of all things and follows quickly on the heels of 4G network deployments and the recognition that mobile broadband networks are essentially distributed supercomputers. SDN will sweep through the IT industry and set the stage for SDN/NFV to transform the telecom mobile broadband industry. ABI Research’s view is a virtualized telecom market of $5 billion to $6 billion by 2018.” “The SCN and NFV Business Case” by ABI Research.
“Global wireless CapEx is on the rise, as operators deploy LTE and Heterogeneous Network (HetNet) infrastructure, amid growing demands for high-speed mobile broadband mobile connectivity. By eliminating reliance on expensive proprietary hardware platforms, Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) and Software Defined Networking (SDN) promise to reduce the CapEx burden on wireless carriers. In addition, both technologies can significantly slash OpeEx due to a reduction in physical space, labor and power consumption (…) By 2020, SNS Research estimates that NFV and SDN investments on the RAN segment alone will account for over $5 Billion. These investments will primarily focus on cloud RAN (C-RAN) deployments, based around the idea of replacing traditional base station modes with a centralized basedband processing pool serving a number of distributed radio access nodes.” “The NFV, SDN & Wireless Network Infrastructure Market: 2014-2020” by Signals and Systems Telecom.
“All things are numbers” – Pythagoras. “There is no unique picture of reality” – Stephen Hawking.
“Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) explicitly targets the two biggest problems facing network operators: bringing costs in line with revenue growth expectations and improving service velocity (…) NFV was launched by network operators (…) SDN was conceived by data center operators to address data center network complexity and cost issues.” “NFV is an opportunity changing network operator’s business models,” by Michael Kenney on FierceTelecom.
“Benefits for network operators and their customers: reduced operator CAPEX and OPEX through reduced equipment costs and reduced power consumption, reduced time-to-market to deploy new network services, improved return on investment from new services, greater flexibility to scale up, scale down or evolve services, openness to the virtual appliance market and pure software entrants, opportunities to trial and deploy new innovative services at lower risk.” “What is Network Functions Virtualization?” by ETSI NFV Industry Specification Group.
“The attention has been primarily on revenue generation, with standardization bringing efficiency to the network transformations and finding what services we can drive end-to-end in the digital services space (…) It’s really about scale (…) the real value is what the operators have begun saying occurs on a network scale, taking the concept of programmable network by virtue of implementing a software defined network (SDN). But there is a great deal of programmability automation that comes with the orchestration promised in NFV.” “The business case for NFV,” a tmforum interview with Michael Sullivan-Trainor.
“The work delivered two results we had not necessarily expected. Even a simple application like DNS can benefit clearly from running on an NFV platform. Processes such as scaling, software upgrading and healing are greatly simplified, which increases agility and significantly lowers total cost of ownership (…) service providers can start small on the road to NFV. It is not necessary to deploy many virtual network functions all at once. Of course, sharing the infrastructure will provide the full benefits.” “NFV Insights: Making the [Business] Case for NFV” by Joaquin De La Vega Gonzalez-Sicilia on TMCnet Bloogers.
Read the analysis behind this table on “Business Case for Moving DNS to the Cloud” by Alcatel-Lucent.
“Toto, I have the feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore” – Dorothy, Wizard of Oz.
“The pervasive benefits of NFV can be exploited today (…) By deploying NFV orchestration, the fundamental framework to automate the network will be in place. This paves the way to incrementally adopt SDN to support NFV (…) The people challenges for NFV and SDN are not to be underestimated as manual, craft-sensitive processes are automated and operations are dramatically revamped. Exposing network programmability where it did not previous exist necessitates that networking people become software people for network operators to cross the chasm into the software-intensive NFV/SDN universe.” “NFV Insider’s Perspective, Part 2: There’s a Network in NFV – The Business Case for SDN” by Marc Cohn at sdn central.
“Nearly every operator surveyed will deploy SDN or NFV in some aspect of their network at some point. This is the year that SDN and NFV move from the lab to field trials. Over the coming months, a few operators will move to actual commercial deployments, mostly specific NFV use cases, but only a few. It won’t be until 2015 that we’ll see commercial deployments kick into motion, still most likely on a limited basis, as operators put one or two use cases to the test under real world conditions, in their live networks (…) Survey respondents rated business vE-CPE (using NFV for the delivery of services to business/enterprises) the #1 cuse case overal for NFV in 2014-2015; business vE-CPE is also ranked the top use case for revenue generation. Meanwhile, back office OSS/BSS was cited as the biggest barrier to deploying NFV by respondents.” “SDN and NFV Strategies: Global Service Provider Survey,” by Michael Howard at Infonetics Research.
“The cloud computing market is mature but the network function virtualization (NFV) and software-defined networking (SDN) markets are still nascent. We forecast that NFV and SDN drivers will start to overpower inhibitors in 2016 (…) the worldwide NFV market will grow from USD 181 million in 2013 to USD 2.4 billion in 2018; worldwide SDN speding by CSPs and data center providers (DCPs) will grown from USD 319 million in 2013 to USD 3 billion in 2018; and worldwide cloud computing spending by CSPs only will grow from USD 3.9 billion in 2013 to USD 7.6 billion in 2018.” “Cloud Computing, NFV and SDN: Worldwide Market Sizing and Forecast 2014-2018,” by Glen Ragoonanan at Analysis Mason.
“ETSI has created the NFV ISG to define the requirements and architecture for the virtualization of network functions and to address their technical challenges: ensuring that virtualized network platforms will be simpler to operate than what exists today; achieving high performance virtualized network appliances which are portable between different vendors and with different hypervisors; achieving co-existence with legacy hardware based platforms whilst enabling an efficient migration path to fully virtualized network platforms which re-use operator BSS and OSS; management and orchestration of virtual network appliances while ensuring security from attack and misconfiguration; maintaining network stability and service levels without degradation during appliance load and relocation; ensuring appropriate level of resilience to hardware and software failures, enabling the creation of virtual network appliances which will run, ideally without recompilation, on any hypervisor and hardware ‘on the fly’ into the network operators’ existing management and orchestration systems; analyzing requirements for future technical specification and standards; minimizing energy consumption.” “Network Functions Virtualization – Introductory White Paper” by ETSI NFV Industry Specification Group. Update.