Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
In terms of what could be improved, I would say the cost. The SDN hardware especially is much too expensive, specifically 799 and 9000, which act like a spine and those spines are connecting to the leaves. The architecture itself is very expensive compared to NSX where we have flexibility with the virtual environment for the same purpose controlling east-west traffic, policing, profiling, and everything is done on both the features. But the Cisco hardware is much too expensive. Performance-wise in the data center with 30G, 40G, 100G, you need to know how specific data can be sent to that 100G if you are using FCP only for the same traffic. Whereas with VMware or even Broker, they have tested 10G or even 100G with the interfaces and they give 100G performance. But with ACI, with your chip set for the FC, we still have not actually seen that the performance is productive. So the cost for the data center could be reduced. Other things are fine because we have SDN now with Repeller and Cisco is very good here. Umbrella is good. I think it's progressing towards the cloud. The WAN is good. But on the SDN data center, software defined data center, it should be considered in comparison to partners.
This is a software solution, which is less stable than a hardware solution by definition.
I would like to see the principle scan introduce more models, to help with scalability issues. Some other competitors have more options. On a smaller scale, there is not much variation in the product. The customer has a choice of a small number of categories. The performance could be improved. It would be helpful if they offered modularized upgrades, such as additional memory or a faster processor.
What do you like most about Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the community!