Virtual CPE, the first step in the commitment of NFV service providers: vendor independent network.
A key starting point for CSP and ISP NFV solutions is the use of virtual CPE (consumer based equipment), especially the industrial variant of vE-CPE – Virtual CPE. The immediate benefits of reduced CapEx and flexibility mean that enterprise networks grow into one of the first to receive vCPE format NFV solutions from service providers.
But there are still obstacles to overcome and 3 different Virtual CPE implementations have been developed as a solution to some of these problems. In this article, I will describe the 3 different implementation types as well as the existing problems that prevent service providers from implementing complete CPE Deployment.
Not all vCPEs are created equa
Although recent studies show that most, if not all major service providers plan their network infrastructure and services towards SDN / NFV, they do not have the ability to use the Virtual CPE solution yet. Given the wide range of levels of advancement and development, no two CPE practices are exactly alike, and because not all networking functions can be implemented in a way that can be used for performance-critical applications, many have achieved hybrid CPE or almost complete. solutions in response to these shortcomings.
“Virtual” centralized VCPE – All VNFs (virtual network functions) are implemented on the side of the service provider, with the physical CPE operating as little as level 2 on to the network and services aige. Currently the purest and rarest implementation of CPE, only the most advanced vendors on the market (i.e. Versas, pictured above) have offerings in this sector. Because network functions are downloaded over the service provider network, only a low-power device (like the one above) should be a gateway to the cloud network where network activity is located. all hosted.
Hybrid CPE – some performance-critical VNFs are run on local hardware and the rest are available through the cloud of service providers. This is currently the most popular method, as it allows companies to use resources to address performance issues on both sides and provide a complete, cost-effective solution. Since an ISP
network is used to download many of the network functions, one network device can use a small feature like the one above.
uCPE or local vCPE – All NFVs are used in fixed network devices. Universal CPE, a term recently coined by AT&T, is an NFV platform where all network functions are integrated into standard x86 hardware, unlike the standard CPE implementation by the a big difference is that the proprietary hardware is now virtual and rooted in the white box of vendor-agnostic tools. Because this solution requires a capable infrastructure and powerful hardware, it is usually in the form of high-performance Intel x86 network rack devices (like the one pictured above).
Use issues and boundaries for these different implementations
These three different approaches arose from the need to cross boundaries in conventional VNF networks and service providers.
True vCPE as of now is only possible for small to medium sized businesses, partly due to issues such as dual encryption and tromboning. Because of the obvious security implications of sending unencrypted plaintext data to a cloud network, we must first encrypt any data sent from vCPE to cloud provider networks. The data then needs to be decrypted, processed, encrypted once and finally sent back to vCPE. This creates a great deal of confusion and nostalgia which makes this solution inconvenient when applied to a critical application of performance on a larger scale. Also, at a more basic level, network tromboning occurs when data is sent, processed, and returned. Although this can be done in small volumes with DHCP, DNS etc… Density can still be a problem as it builds.
Implementing vCPE on premises, or designated “private clouds”, is more appropriate for large companies that need or prefer to implement their own Infrastructure (for performance reasons, security concerns or other factors). While a powerful solution, it is also costly and infertile to NFV’s commitment to reduced Capital spending.
That is why hybrid solutions now make up the majority of high-end CPEs in the market. The ability to implement critical functions on local hardware as well as service provider networks gives businesses the flexibility they need to deploy critical applications in finding new revenue streams. As CPE’s flexible platforms continue to grow, businesses can decide what VNFS will run in the building and what will be downloaded to the cloud.
Below is an example of a flexible VNF that can be used as a centralized CPE, Hybrid CPE, or full build with only the orchestrator running on the service provider’s network:
In this picture we see how branch size determines the best architecture to implement, with small businesses able to fully rely on service provider networks, a medium-sized business running critical performance tasks in a more hybrid environment , and ultimately large branches of a company that require specialized fixed hardware to meet demands. This flexible architecture allows service providers to deploy NFV solutions in areas that would otherwise be inconvenient.
In Summary:
The best solution is the one that suits you.One of the most widespread benefits is the transition to SDN, NFV and Virtual CPE. It is therefore not surprising that vendors focus on a hybrid action architecture that incorporates the diverse needs of the enterprise equipment consumer enterprise business priority.
