Pluribus Networks
  • Home
  • Solutions
  • Partners
  • News
  • About Us
    • Team
    • Investors
    • Careers
    • Location
    • Contact Us
    • Blog
Network Switching Costs I: The Economics of Open Networking

Post navigation

← Previous Next →

Network Switching Costs I: The Economics of Open Networking

7
Posted on November 30, 2011 by rolf

There have been a lot of really good discussions and conferences this year (see Woodstock moment at www.opennetsummit.org) on the promise of open, software-defined networking (SDN) to end the Tyranny of the Network — too expensive, too closed, too much work, too static, too insecure, too many VLANs, too few VLANs, too many ARPs, too few MACs, too many pages in RFCs, too little content, too many protocols, too slow innovation, too much FUD.

As such OpenFlow and SDN have momentum on their side.

And there is no question it leads to some really interesting academic work like formally provable characteristics of the network (view Nick McKeown’s talk video here), new programming languages (www.frenetic-lang.org), students being able to experiment with new protocols in the wild (www.geni.net).

But what’s the deal commercially?

In other words, what is the economic value created by merchant silicon and open networking software?

It turns out people will buy more at lower prices and vendors want to sell more at higher prices.  So price and quantity demanded are inversely related and that’s called the Demand curve. The Marginal Revenue is the incremental revenue that is up for grabs for producing one additional unit of the product. Without getting too Econ101, the slope of the Marginal Revenue is twice as steep as that of the Demand curve. The only other curve we will contemplate here is that of the cost to produce one additional unit of the product (Marginal Cost).

OK, what’s the point?

The point is that the quantity that sellers produce is dramatically different whether a particular market is a quasi-monopoly or perfectly competitive. And if we were to talk about the data center and enterprise Ethernet switching market, today its state is much more the former than the latter.

Exhibit 1: State of the switching market today: a textbook case of a quasi-monopoly

Exhibit 1: State of the switching market today: a textbook case of a quasi-monopoly

Exhibit 1 shows the state of the switching market today, a textbook case of a quasi-monopoly.

In a quasi-monopoly, the quantity produced by the sellers is Q1 (where MR intersects MC). The price of that product is P1. In the case of, say, data center top-of-rack switches, P1 is about $14,000 today (give or take for your 48 to 64 10gbps-port job). Assuming cost of goods sold (COGS) is about $3,500 and that marginal cost is double COGS (leaving why as exercise to the reader for a moment) MC = $7,000.

Exhibit 2: State of the market as it would be with open networking: ~=perfect competition

Exhibit 2: State of the market as it would be with open networking: ~=perfect competition

Exhibit 2 shows the state of the market as it would be with open networking — perfect competition.

Perfect competition means free entry and exit, and as industry barriers go we will get pretty close courtesy of merchant  silicon in switching, contract manufacturing, open source everything, i.e.,  (formerly) fixed cost, say hello to variable cost. Now the sellers produce at quantity Q2.  And here is the kicker: Q2 = 2 x Q1, because it lies at the intersection of D and MC. Assume MC about flat in the range. (Note: MC and COGS remain about constant over time but obviously each product vintage will bring port count/speed bumps following Moore’s-or-other Law). Lo and behold, we are buying the same (substitute) top-of-rack switches for P2 = $7,000.

This isn’t to say every switch will go for an average selling price (ASP) of $7,000. In fact, a much richer ecosystem will see more switch makes, more flavors of how, where and with what performance switching is done in the data center, more choices of bells and whistles, and maybe more business models in how the stuff is consumed. But the market’s willingness to pay for today’s “state-of-the-art” switching function proper (meaning data center-class L2 + basic L3 feature set) will be $7,000 — roughly half.

If we call the Ethernet switching market about a $16 billion run rate then the consumer surplus that open networking will create is worth $4 billion per year (the area of the yellow triangle). Using an enterprise value/revenue multiplier of 3 (as of today Dec. 1 2011, CSCO is a bit under 2, JNPR a bit over 2, RVBD a bit over 5, and FFIV a bit over 7), this values merchant silicon + open networking value creation at $12 billion.

The question then is, with this newfound $12 billion consumer surplus, what innovation will he or she want to spend it on?

So Open Networking promises more diversity, faster innovation and a richer ecosystem — but if all else fails we still get to buy two switches for the price of one. And if public cloud is to be 50% of their market by 2015, this is one stimulus package we all share in.

Share This :

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
This entry was posted in Network Economics, Open Networking and tagged cost analysis, market analysis by rolf. Bookmark the permalink.

7 thoughts on “Network Switching Costs I: The Economics of Open Networking”

  1. Abhijeet Prabhune on May 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM said:

    Hey Rolf,
    Nice analysis. An observation I think you’ll agree the value creation is on the premise that what comes out of SDN/OpenFlow really is an open network and not a closed proprietary system where the surplus just gets moved around withing different network components.

    You hit the nail on the head with “What innovation will he/she want the spend on?” This is what probably most of the industry is grappling with. Thoughts? :)

    Reply ↓
    • rolf on May 31, 2012 at 4:13 PM said:

      Hey Abhijeet,
      To shift 100% from the MR to D curve (Q1 to Q2 production) econ only requires perfect competition / no barriers to entry. It’s debatable what exactly an “open network” is but clearly it’s not an ecosystem of closed/non programmable/walled garden API with a 2-year CCIE recertification exam as the entry ticket to manage the stuff. So basically we’re on the same page.

      On the surplus, it will stay in customers pockets unless it can be pried from those with a Willingness to Spend (WTP) in the yellow triangle. Practically this usually means some “differentiated” value-add that appeals. My thoughts? It could be simpler management (accelerates business agility and yes less manpower to admin each machine, but that trend is well underway). It could be network services that make apps work better. It could how the infrastructure is delivered (the way Rolls-Royce “Power by the Hour” sells flight hours rather than jet engines to airlines). But most likely, it’s probably in all the ways we haven’t thought of yet.

      Reply ↓
      • Abhijeet Prabhune on June 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM said:

        Thanks for your reply! Agreed! The business model innovation is just half the story. The real fun will begin afterwards once the system opens up and developers can dream new and imaginative ways to use and optimize the system for their specific application. :) And what they’ll demand from the platform is yet to be seen.

        Reply ↓
  2. Pingback: Network Switching Costs II: The 55% Tax (B)racket Pluribus Networks

  3. Pingback: Network Switching Costs II: The 55% Tax (B)racket | | Pluribus NetworksPluribus Networks

  4. Pingback: SDN and Openflow- Driving Cloud Adoption and Virtualization: Part I | Pluribus Networks

  5. Pingback: SDN and Openflow- Driving Cloud Adoption and Virtualization: Part I | Pluribus Networks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Feed for Thought!

RSS Feed

Follow Us on Twitter

  • Pluribus will be talking about our integration with OpenStack at 9:50 on Thurs in room A104 #openstack 1 month ago
  • At the Openstack summit online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-… #openstack 1 month ago
  • Happy to be participating at the OpenStack Summit: #openstack online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-… 1 month ago
  • ASPone LTD is implementing their trading and financial applications on TIBCO FTL switches (based on the Pluribus N… aspone.co.uk/TIBCO 1 month ago
  • @leonardmcdowell Thanks for the follow. Interested in knowing more about Pluribus? 1 month ago

Categories

  • Analysis
  • Network Economics
  • Network OS
  • Network Virtualization
  • Networking Architecture
  • Open Networking
  • SDN
  • SDN & Openflow
  • TIBCO

Log In

Please log into the site.

Recent Posts

  • Pluribus Recognized as a “Top 10 SDN Start-Up to Watch” by Network World
  • A Couple of Presentations Tomorrow
  • We’ve Been Busy
  • Of Controllers and Why Nicira had to do a deal (Part III: SDN And Openflow – Enabling Network Virtualization in the Cloud)
  • Traditional Network Infrastructure Model and Problems Associated with it

Recent Comments

  • Amado on Pluribus Recognized as a “Top 10 SDN Start-Up to Watch” by Network World
  • Click This Link on Pluribus Recognized as a “Top 10 SDN Start-Up to Watch” by Network World
  • linux on SDN and Openflow- Enabling Network Virtualization in the Cloud: Part II
  • Yuqing on Of Controllers and Why Nicira had to do a deal (Part III: SDN And Openflow – Enabling Network Virtualization in the Cloud)
  • X on Of Controllers and Why Nicira had to do a deal (Part III: SDN And Openflow – Enabling Network Virtualization in the Cloud)

Archives

  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
Proudly powered by WordPress