What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Wed Jan 26 21:04:44 UTC 2022
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:37 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
> I think for the vast majority of cloud users they'd do a way worse job at
> uptime than the providers. Whether that applies to some telcos, I'm not
It seems like some of the situation is:
"5g/mobile builds include a bunch more 'general machine' resources which
offload a bunch of the work from what was dedicated appliances/etc."
Followed quickly by:
"Well, we don't have the resources/etc to design/build/run/maintain that
sort of thing in the field"
In a bunch of mobile deployments (in the US at least) a lot of the work was
done by some vendor already, so swapping one vendor for another isn't
"Out with Nortel, in with Ericcsson!"
As to 'is this cloud?' or not, that's probably not super important? If the
telco (as an example) could come to an agreement with ~bunches of local
who'd all cooperate and build/deploy 'the same thing' (from the goes-into
and goes-outof perspective) a price points which would be palatable. I
imagine the telcos would have taken that direction. Instead, they choose
to minimize the number of contracts and options and get cookie-cutter
Folk may grate at 'aws' or 'azure' or 'gcp' ... but really the telco folk
(the customer in this case) is choosing someone to run infra for them,
under contract with what they hope are appropriate SLO/SLA and repair
properties. It certainly behooves them to think about failure scenarios,
but that's what SLO/SLA are for, right? :) and offloading the methods of
repair/avoidance is part of the contract process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG