> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH RESEARCH

WHITE PAPER

END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION:

CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
Anil Rao, Hansang (Andy) He

JULY 2019

analysysmason.com
1
Contents
1. Executive summary 3

2. The importance of network orchestration for CSPs 4

2.1 The role and scope of network orchestration 4

2.2 Motivations to deploy network orchestration 6

3. Overview of network orchestration deployments 8

3.1 Architecture and deployment scenarios of network orchestrators in NFV and SDN 8

3.2 Status of CSP network orchestrator deployment 10

4. Customer expectations from an orchestration solution 12

5. Deployment options and challenges 14

5.1 CSPs’ network orchestrator procurement strategies 14

5.2 CSPs’ preferences for network orchestrator vendor partners 15

5.3 CSPs’ attitudes towards open-source solutions 16

5.4 Top-4 challenges for CSPs to deploy network orchestrators at scale 17

6. CSP expectations of good network orchestrator vendor partners 18

7. Conclusions and recommendations 19

About the authors 20

Analysys Mason’s consulting and research are uniquely positioned 21

Research from Analysys Mason 22

Consulting from Analysys Mason 23

List of figures

Figure 1: Key components of network orchestration 5

Figure 2: Stages and paths of network orchestration evolution 5

Figure 3: Importance of network automation to CSPs 6

Figure 4: Drivers of network orchestrator deployment 7

Figure 5: Orchestration in NFV deployments 8

Figure 6: Orchestration in WAN SDN deployments 9

Figure 7: The role of systems integration for network orchestration 10

Figure 8: NFV/SDN deployment approaches 11

Figure 9: Prioritised use cases for network orchestration and WAN automation 13

Figure 10: CSPs’ build versus buy strategy for network orchestrators 14

Figure 11: Preferred suppliers of network orchestrators 15

Figure 12: Attitude to open-source solutions 16

Figure 13: Challenges of deploying network orchestrators 17

Figure 14: CSPs’ expectations from good network orchestrator vendor partners 18
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

1 Executive summary
Network function virtualisation (NFV) and software-defined networking (SDN) technologies are
transforming the way networks are designed, built and provisioned. At the heart of this transformation
is the expectation that these technologies will enable communications service providers (CSPs) to
achieve high levels of network automation to: reduce service delivery times from months to days or
even hours or minutes; and automate the network optimisation and day-to-day operations to
guarantee the contracted service levels and quality of service.

Based on the cloud principles of infrastructure • Co-development with a preferred vendor partner was
flexibility and on-demand resource optimisation, NFV the most popular choice for building NO, with CSPs
and SDN provide the key networking foundation for stating that they would like to retain key domain
automation. However, to fully realise these benefits, knowledge while leveraging the supplier’s expertise.
CSPs require next-generation network management
Based on our ongoing research in the area of network
software, commonly known as network orchestration
automation and orchestration, it is evident that most
(NO). CSPs are taking two broad paths towards
CSPs are taking a stepwise approach to deploying
implementing NO – the NFV path for the service
CD-NO. As CSPs gradually introduce new NFV and
lifecycle management and orchestration of virtual
SDN domains, the new and changed components must
network functions (VNFs), and the WAN SDN path for
be integrated with the adjunct components, including
software-defined control and automation of the
the existing orchestration systems. Due to the diverse
wide-area network (WAN). These two paths ultimately
nature of CSPs’ virtualisation environments, software
converge with the implementation of a fully integrated
components will require high levels of customisation to
cross-domain network orchestration (CD-NO) system
make virtualisation environments fit for purpose. To
that performs the combined function of lifecycle
achieve the desired results in such a dynamic and
management and WAN SDN across networking
complex networking environment, even as they support
domains to create and provision services end-to-end.
existing services, CSPs will require state-of-the-art
This white paper presents the findings of primary systems integration (SI) capabilities with DevOps, and
research (a survey of, and interviews with, CSPs) continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/
conducted by Analysys Mason to assess the status of CD) processes. Few CSPs possess all these capabilities
NO implementations worldwide, the preferences of and must rely on a suitable vendor partner (or
CSPs when choosing network orchestrators and the partners) to bridge the skills gap. In addition to strong
challenges encountered during the implementation. SI capabilities, vendor partners must demonstrate key
The key findings of the survey were as follows. characteristics such as deep networking expertise,
strong commitment to open-source solutions,
• The survey unequivocally proved that CSPs worldwide
compliance with industry standards and the ability to
are considering or deploying some form of NO to
provide multi-vendor support.
operationalise NFV- and SDN-based networks.
• More than half of the CSPs surveyed said that
network automation was a top-3 strategic initiative,
and it was the main motivation to deploy NO.
• Service lifecycle management, and network and
service configuration automation were the most
common use cases for deploying NO.

3
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

2 The importance of network orchestration for CSPs

NFV and SDN technologies enable CSPs to apply new considerations around managing the hypervisor-
cloud-based innovation approaches, automation tools based virtualisation environment. However, as more
and software-driven capabilities to the network, VNFs were introduced into a common virtualisation
thereby offering next-generation digital services in an environment, it quickly became apparent that CSPs
on-demand manner. The move away from the could no longer rely on traditional network management
appliance-based networks to virtualised networking systems (NMS) and manual processes for management
software on commercial hardware is one of two paths and operations.
to realise automation. The other approach is to use
CSPs have also been implementing SDN-based
SDN overlay technologies to achieve network
technology to provide automation overlays or control
automation in existing physical networks even as CSPs
plane extensions to existing control planes for their
deploy native SDN-enabled networks. Using
wide-area networks (WANs), comprising IP/optical
programmable software control, CSPs can significantly
access and transport networks. The first step in the
improve their business agility on multiple fronts
WAN SDN journey relies on domain-specific controllers,
including the speed of service innovation, reduced
based on either traditional NMS or its SDN-based
service deployment times and the ability to respond
evolution, in each individual domain. Subsequently, CSPs
rapidly and flexibly to changing service demand. At the
could plan to move onto a multi-layer WAN SDN control
heart of this transformational change is the technology
platform, which sits on top of separate domain-specific
that provides this software control and programmability
controllers to rationalise and simplify each silo with a
to the network – network orchestration (NO).
horizonal, programmable management and control
The analysis in this white paper is informed by an layer. In effect, it joins up network control and OSS-like
extensive primary research effort to understand the lifecycle management functionalities. Due to the
drivers, inhibitors and status of CSPs’ network demands of high performance and near real-time
orchestrator implementations, their selection network controls, the control layer needs to be
preferences and the challenges encountered during implemented as a lightweight and independent module.
the implementation. The primary research consisted of
The existing network management and operations
52 CSP surveys and 10 CSP interviews with CSPs from
technology was conceived for physical networks with
Asia–Pacific, Europe and North America, across all
disparate operations support systems (OSS) leading to
CSP tiers.1 Survey participants provided answers to a
highly disjointed manual processes. CSPs have
series of closed-ended questions while the interviews
introduced incremental improvements over the years to
entailed in-depth conversations with senior CSP
improve efficiencies but the fundamentally different
executives whose titles ranged from VP in Network
nature of the NFV/SDN-based networks, and the high
Engineering, President in Network and Service
levels of agility and operational efficiencies expected by
Operations to Head of Network Automation and OSS as
the business mean that the current operations approach
well as Director in Network Transformation. All the
is not fit for purpose. CSPs need an operations approach
participants for the primary research came from CSPs
based on automation, to configure and manage the
that are advanced in their thinking and deployment of
lifecycle of VNFs and the virtualisation environment as
network orchestrators. The analysis is also informed by
well as to provision WAN-based connectivity. CSPs
Analysys Mason’s continuous interviews with CSPs and
recognise that they need to do this at scale as they
other research in this field. .
prepare for 5G and IoT with potential new agile B2B2X
2.1 The role and scope of network orchestration services. However, this will require an automation layer
to rapidly stitch together and manage various network
Many large Tier 1 and Tier 2 CSPs have been on the NFV
functions and domains as part of the end-to-end
journey for between 5 and 7 years. The first step in the
service. It is in this context that NO has emerged as a
NFV evolution entails migrating the network functions
critical software function and a critical enabler of CSPs’
out of the proprietary appliances onto commercial
network automation initiatives.
hardware and hosted on a hypervisor-enabled virtual
machine on dedicated commercial hardware. From an
operations perspective, the virtual network functions
(VNFs) were treated much like the physical network
function so did not require major changes except for

1
Of the 52 CSPs surveyed, 7 were from North America, 23 were from Europe and 22 were from Asia–Pacific; 28 were Tier 1 and 2 CSPs, and 24
were Tier 3 and 4 CSPs. Of the 10 CSPs interviewed, 1 was from North America, 5 were from Europe and 4 were from Asia–Pacific; 8 were Tier 1
and 2 CSPs, and 2 were Tier 3 and 4 CSPs. 4
 > END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
Cross-domain network orchestration (CD-NO) Cross-domain network orc

NFV orchestrator (NFVO) SDN-controller (SDN-C)

1 2 3
According to Domain-
Analysys Mason, network orchestration configuration; and (c) automatically set up connectivity in
Multi-vendor
Multi-vendor
consists of key software components to automate
specific the WAN, either between VNFs or across
cross-domain networkphysical
cross-domain network control
SDN-controller
network automation
operations. 2
(SDN-C)
Broadly, VNFtomanager
NO provides the ability (VNFM)
equipment orchestration
using SDN extended
technologies. to NFV
Figure 1 illustrates VNF manager
do three things: (a) automate the management of the the key components and control lines of the NO: NFV
Vendor A/N/X
lifecycle of the VNFs i.e., instantiation, placement, scale orchestrator (NFVO), VNFVendor C/D/E/
managers (VNFM), and
Controller of controllers in-house/open source
Orchestration

in/out, self-healing, upgrades, migration etc, (b) cross-domain network orchestrator (CD-NO). CD-NO
automate the provisioning and activation of service- manages an SDN controller that C/D/E/
Vendor in turn manages
specific network configurations to existing VNF connections between physical and
in-house/open virtual
sourcenetwork
instances or create new instances with the correct functions.
Domain 1 Domain 1 Domain N Vendor Vendor
F
A/F B/F

Vendor N Vendor A Vendor B

Vendor ACross-domain Vendor
networkA orchestration (CD-NO)
Controller 1 Controller 1 Controller N
Vendor G,H
NFV orchestrator (NFVO)
Vendor J,K,L
VNF manager
Vendor A (VNFM) Vendor A SDN-controller
Vendor N (SDN-C)
Network element Network element Network element Vendor X,Y,Z
1 1 N
FIGURE 1: KEY COMPONENTS OF NETWORK ORCHESTRATION
Domain-specific E2E orchestration
k [SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]
)

Virtual infrastructure Cross-domain network

O) Based on component
NFV research by key
Analysys Mason, CSPs are taking VNFUltimately, the two paths converge towards a fully
manager (VNFM)
management (VIM) orchestration (CD-NO)
two distinct evolution paths for NO (see Figure 2): integrated cross-domain orchestration system that not
only orchestrates across networking domains3 but also
COTS
• the ‘NFV hardware
path’ for the serviceVirtualisation software
lifecycle management VNF NFV orchestrator (NFVO)
automates the functions of NFV lifecycle management
and orchestration of VNFs
and SDN control to create and provision services end-to-
• the WAN SDN path’ for software-defined control and end by abstracting the underlying complexity. Even
automation of the WAN. further down the road, cross-domain orchestration can
extend to IT domains too.
NFV

NFV path Use case managed Domain

by EMS or VNFM orchestration

Cross-domain
F orchestration

WAN SDN Domain-specific Cross-domain

B path controller controller

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

FIGURE 2: STAGES AND PATHS OF NETWORK ORCHESTRATION EVOLUTION

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

2
See Analysys Mason’s Network automation and orchestration: worldwide forecast 2018–2022 (available at www.analysysmason.com/nao-
forecast-rma07) for a detailed description of the functional blocks of NO.
3
A domain may be associated with a specific technology, such as mobile connectivity or business services, or it could be geographically
determined. 5
)
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

2.2 Motivations to deploy network orchestration emphasis on automation, with 82% of them assigning
network automation as being at least a ‘top-5’ initiative,
Figure 3 highlights the importance of network
compared with around 70% of CSPs from Europe and
automation for CSPs. 75% of respondents thought of
North America. Tier 1 and 2 CSPs appeared to be more
network automation as being at least a ‘top-5’ initiative,
committed than smaller CSPs to network automation,
in fact 50% of CSPs considered network automation as
with 82% of them considering it at least a ‘top-5’
a ‘top-3’ initiative in their company. CSPs from the
initiative whereas the ratio among Tier 3 and 4 CSPs
Asia–Pacific region placed a particularly strong
stands at 67%.

It is a top-3 initiative 50%

It is a top-5 initiative 25%

It is a top-10 initiative 19%

It is not a top-10 initiative 6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Percentage of respondents

FIGURE 3: IMPORTANCE OF NETWORK AUTOMATION TO CSPS4

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

“
Interviewed CSPs largely concurred with those we We believe that 5G will provide a plethora of
surveyed. Most of them observed a close link between
opportunities and the advent of 5G has been highly
5G and network automation.
Service lifecycle management (i.e. service accelerated in the last three quarters, not only by
62%
instantiation, guaranteed service availability/quality)

“
OEMs but also by operators (to lead the 5G market)
We have a huge,
Automating networkcomplex network
and service consisting
configuration and of
provisioning for physical networks and governments (for example, 60% those of Thailand
fixed, broadband, television, mobile, data and
Network solutions.
complexity, i.e.
and Malaysia). Considering the growing impetus for
enterprise Asmanagement across hybrid
the entire telecoms 38%
networks 5G, and the need for network slicing and more
industry is getting ready for the introduction of 5G,
VNF lifecycle management (i.e. just-in-time complex services,
37%
we need to prepare for
network virtualisation andupdate/patch
instantiation, automation is the need of
etc.)
deployment of orchestration and expect a shift
the hour. On top of that we have more than
We are not doing anything on orchestrator
400
2% toward orchestration pilots and initial deployment

”
million mobile customers and we consider
deployment "One single source of information
over the
across all next 2−3
networks years.
that would make
automation to be one of theOther, top-three initiatives to it easier for the operations team to

”
please specify 2% Tier 1 single-country
deploy CSP from Asia–Pacific
and manage networks."
enhance the customer experience.
Tier 1 multi-country CSP from Europe 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percentage of respondents
selecting a given answer

vEPC 40%

Multi-vendor
4 device/service
How important configuration
is increasing network 33%only].
automation overall to your company? [Select one answer 6
End-to-end orchestration 31%

vIMS 27%
 It is a top-3 initiative 50%

It is a top-5 initiative 25%

> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

It is a top-10 initiative 19%

It is not a top-10 initiative 6%

0%
Service lifecycle management 10%network
and 20% 30%
and service 40%
configuration50% 60%lifecycle management (52% of
to service
configuration automation stand out as the Percentage
most of respondents
European CSPs); but it was the opposite for APAC CSPs
popular motivation to deploy a network orchestrator, (55% and 68%, respectively); North American CSPs,
with well over half of surveyed CSPs considering them while still leaning towards service lifecycle
as the two most influential drivers (see Figure 4). management also singled out network complexity as a
Looking at CSPs from each region: 65% of European significant factor; 71% of North American CSPs chose
CSPs preferred automating network and service both as their main drivers for network orchestration.

Service lifecycle management (i.e. service

instantiation, guaranteed service availability/quality)
62%

Automating network and service configuration and

provisioning for physical networks
60%

Network complexity, i.e. management across hybrid

networks
38%

VNF lifecycle management (i.e. just-in-time

instantiation, update/patch etc.)
37%

We are not doing anything on orchestrator

deployment
2% "One single source of information
across all networks that would make
it easier for the operations team to
Other, please specify 2% deploy and manage networks."

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of respondents
selecting a given answer

FIGURE 4: DRIVERS OF NETWORK ORCHESTRATOR DEPLOYMENT5

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

vEPC 40%

Multi-vendor device/service configuration 33%

End-to-end orchestration 31%

vIMS 27%

vCPE 21%

Multi-layer control for IP/ optical domain 17%

vRAN 13%
"Single Vendor Service Configuration"
Single layer control for IP/optical domain 10% "SD-WAN"
"B2B & B2C"
Other, please specify 8% "Cost arbitrage"

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percentage of respondents who ranked the answer as 1 or 2

5 Co-development with a vendor partner

What drives you to deploy/consider deploying orchestrator(s)? [Select Top 2]
40% 7

Commercial off-the-shelf 21%

> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

3 Overview of network orchestration deployments

The deployment approaches of network orchestration 3.1 Architecture and deployment scenarios of
differ from CSP to CSP. Section 2.1 provided a high- network orchestrators in NFV and SDN
level view of the two most prevalent paths – NFV path
As CSPs make progress in NFV and WAN SDN
and the WAN SDN approach. This section will explore
deployments, scenarios are emerging that call for
these two paths in more detail and discuss their
network orchestrators. Of the three deployment
deployment considerations, as well as highlighting the
scenarios of NFV, network orchestrators are
significance of professional services and systems
indispensable in the two scenarios that are more
integration services in enabling the journey towards
advanced (See Figure 5).
the full end-to-end orchestration.

1 2 3
Domain-specific (vEPC, 1
Domain-specific (vCPE, End-to-end (multiple
vIMS) Domain-
multiple vendors) domains) orchestration
use-case approach, two specific
orchestration approach approach
versions automation

Vendor C/D/E/
Version 1: Version 2: in-house/open source

Orchestration
VNF managed VNF managed
by by Vendor F Vendor F
EMS VNFM in-house/open source in-house/open source

Domain 1
Vendor A/F Vendor A/F Vendor B/F Vendor A/F Vendor B/F

Vendor A Vendor B Vendor A Vendor B Vendor A Vendor B Vendor A

Controller 1
Vendor B Vendor C Vendor G,H

Vendor A Vendor B Vendor D Vendor J,K,L

Vendor A
Vendor A/B/C Vendor E Vendor X,Y,Z Network element
1
Domain-specific
Virtual infrastructure Cross-domain network
NFV component key VNF manager (VNFM)
management (VIM) orchestration (CD-NO)

COTS hardware Virtualisation software VNF NFV orchestrator (NFVO) NFV component key

COTS hardware
Pure NFV case. Not shown: orchestrator can also manage physical appliances

FIGURE 5: ORCHESTRATION IN NFV DEPLOYMENTS

1 ANALYSYS MASON, 2019] 2
[SOURCE: 3
Multi-vendor
Domain-specific Multi-vendor
cross-domain network
automation cross-domain network control
orchestration extended to NFV
The most straightforward NFV deployment scenario domain specific network orchestrators are needed to
that CSPs can undertake is by virtualising a single support the operational
Vendor automation
C/ D/ E/ and the onboarding
network function in a specific network domain. This is and lifecycle management
in-house/openof individual VNFs. Leading
source
Use case
a relatively simple manoeuvre as it effectively creates a CSPs are adopting end-to-end orchestration (shown NFVaspath
Vendor A/ N/ X Vendor C/ D/ E/ by EMS
traditional network silo in a virtualisedController
way using the
of controllers CD-NO in Figurein-house/
5) because of the need to manage a
open source
existing management systems (with or without a digital network and operations platform that extends
VNFM) without the need for a network orchestrator across multipleVendor
network
A/ F domains
Vendor B/ Fand combines NFV
(shown as NFVO in Figure 5). The VNF supplier is and SDN.
Domain WAN SDN Domain
predominantly the1 party, oftentimesDomain
a NEP,1 that Domain N
Advanced CSPsVendor A
that began Vendor B
the automation and path con
approaches the CSP with a pre-integrated solution.
Vendor A Vendor A virtualisation journey earlier than the rest of the
Vendor N
As CSPs contemplate
Controller for deployingController
a variety of VNFs onController Nindustry
1 for for and have completed
Vendor G,H Scenario 1 in Figure 5 Sta
optical network optical network
the same platform
componentin a specific network
component domain, IP routerhave already observed benefits, such as sizable cost

Vendor J,K,L
8
Vendor A Vendor A
Vendor N Vendor X,Y,Z
Optical network Optical network
IP router
element element
 > END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

savings, more-efficient operations, improved service
agility and resilience of virtualised networks. Some are
looking forward to further benefits when orchestration
kicks in.
The use of network orchestrators in WAN SDN
deployments (see Figure 6) is required when the CSP
needs to automate across multiple SDN and NFV
domains end-to-end. Before the final scenario, SDN
controllers manage WAN components such as optical
network components and IP routers with
programmability and intelligence.

1 2 3
Domain- Multi-vendor
Multi-vendor
specific cross-domain network
cross-domain network control
automation orchestration extended to NFV

Vendor A/N/X Vendor C/D/E/

Controller of controllers in-house/open source
Orchestration

Vendor C/D/E/
in-house/open source
Domain 1 Domain 1 Domain N Vendor Vendor
F
A/F B/F

B Vendor N Vendor A Vendor B

Vendor A Vendor A
Controller 1 Controller 1 Controller N
Vendor G,H

Vendor J,K,L

Vendor A Vendor A Vendor N

Network element Network element Network element Vendor X,Y,Z
1 1 N
Domain-specific E2E orchestration
rk
O)

Virtual infrastructure Cross-domain network

VO) NFV component key VNF manager (VNFM)
management (VIM) orchestration (CD-NO)

COTS hardware Virtualisation software VNF NFV orchestrator (NFVO)

FIGURE 6: ORCEHSTRATION IN WAN SDN DEPLOYMENT

k [SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]
o NFV

CSPs can choose two paths in relation to WAN SDN • Alternatively, or concurrently with the first path, CSPs
deployment
NFV path to Use case
obtain managed
centralised and external Domain
control need to have orchestration in place to deploy uCPE or
by EMS
of the various WAN or VNFM
network orchestration vCPE, where the SDN-layer controls the virtualised
elements, with trades-offs
in terms of operational disruption, time to deployment CPE and NFVI is needed to host the WAN function
Cross-domain
and cost. as VNFs.
/F orchestration
• CSPs can add an SDN layer on top of existing WAN The journey to full end-to-end cross-domain
WAN SDN
B infrastructure,Domain-specific Cross-domain orchestration is going to be incremental. CSPs will
without the need to remove and
path controller including optical controller
replace legacy infrastructure and have a higher chance of success if they take a stepwise
packet elements. approach as illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

9
k
)
 Vendor A/ N/ X Vendor C/ D/ E/
Controller of controllers in-house/ open source

Vendor A/ F Vendor B/ F

Domain 1 Domain 1 Domain N WAN SDN Domai

Vendor A Vendor B path
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH con
Vendor A Vendor A Vendor N
Controller for Controller 1 for Controller N for Vendor G,H Sta
optical network optical network IP router
component component
Vendor J,K,L

Vendor A Vendor A
Vendor N Vendor X,Y,Z
Optical network Optical network
IP router
element element
However, each of the stages will incrementally
Domain-specific
Even in cases where CSPs procure commercial
E2E orchestration
introduce new software components and new orchestration solutions, a significant level of
networking domains into the mix, which
Virtual will require
infrastructure customisation and systemsnetwork
Cross-domain integration will be required
NFV component key VNF manager (VNFM)
careful integration and validation before making
management (VIM) the to make the solution suitable
orchestration for their environments.
(CD-NO)
network orchestrators live. To reduce the risk of failure, Figure 7 illustrates such an architecture, in which the
CSPs willCOTS hardware
require Virtualisation
robust systems software
integration VNF NFV orchestrator
interplay of components (NFVO)
is key, not necessarily the
capabilities that incorporate the latest software hierarchy on display.
engineering principles such as DevOps and CI/CD.

Service assurance Service fulfilment

Cross-domain network orchestrator (CD NO) 1.Domain-spe

use-case appr

NFVO/
VNFM
VIM 75%
Multi-layer, multi-vendor WAN SDN SD-WAN/CPE
DC SDN
control and management controllers

2
Domain- Domain- Domain-
specific specific … specific
controller 1 controller 2 controller n Customer
Data centre premises
VNFs VNFs

NFVI
IP core/
Optical … Microwave CPE
aggregation
WAN

Systems integration is needed to

stich every domain together

FIGURE 7: THE ROLE OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION FOR NETWORK ORCHESTRATIONAUTOMATION

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

3.2 Status of CSP network orchestrator deployment • The domain-specific use case approach entails
Cross-domain network orchestration
Figure 8 illustrates the breakdown of orchestration
(CD-NO)
individual VNFs implemented on their own dedicated
Cross-domain net
NFVIs in a specific network domain. The VNF and
approaches adopted by CSPs based on Analysys
NFVI can be managed by existing EMS/NMS/OSS
Mason’s NFV/SDN contract tracker. As of 1Q 2019, 75%
with little, if any, orchestration. Deployments of vIMS
of NFV and SDN deployments are following the
and vEPC are prime examples of such an approach.
NFV
domain-specific approach that doesorchestrator
not include any (NFVO) SDN-controller (SDN-C)
orchestration and 23% of these deployments have
domain-specific orchestration in place, which went up
from 14% of total deployments in 3Q 2017.
SDN-controller (SDN-C) VNF manager (VNFM) VNF m

10
 A
Vendor N Vendor X,Y,Z
twork
IP router
nt

E2E orchestration
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
tructure Cross-domain network
VNF manager (VNFM)
nt (VIM) orchestration (CD-NO)

software VNF NFV orchestrator (NFVO)

• A domain-specific orchestration approach enables

CSPs to operate a platform on which multiple VNFs,
from different vendors, are supported in a specific >1%
Service fulfilment
network domain. A prime example is vCPE, typically
a part of a CSP’s enterprise cloud. 1.Domain-specific 3. End-to-end
network orchestrator (CD NO)
• The end-to-end orchestration approach requires the use-case approach orchestration
approach
CSP to commit to a cross-domain platform from the
very start of its NFV activities. It builds on C-level
commitment to NFV and strong corporate
governance. 75%
er, multi-vendor WAN SDN SD-WAN/CPE
trol and management controllers

2. Domain-specific 23%
Domain- Domain- orchestration
specific … specific approach
controller 2 controller n Customer
premises
VNFs
FIGURE 8: NFV/SDN DEPLOYMENT APPROACHES
Optical … Microwave CPE [SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

WAN

CSPs interviewed for this research have either
stems integration is needed to
deployed NFVO for specific domains or are still
stich every domain together
manging VNFs using VNFMs. End-to-end
orchestration, due to its overwhelming impact on
transition costs, staff training, legacy hardware and
cross-domain expertise, has been considered only by
the most advanced CSPs.
“
NFVO has been deployed for the IMS core. We are
considering the use of NFVO for SD-WAN as well.
Our first NO phase focused on the lifecycle
management of networks, primarily via the
automation of network administration tasks. We
have created a framework with our existing vendors
regarding the implementation of NO. This includes

“
Currently, cross-domain orchestration is not in an internal database creation of existing licenses to
work orchestration (CD-NO)
place and [orchestration] implementation is avoid overpaying for the same VNF and thus
Cross-domain network orchestration (CD-NO)
restricted to select domains within the company keeping the costs in control. Currently, plans to
(e.g. the transport facility). Complete orchestration integrate all the different network orchestrators into
would require links between multiple databases to a single common layer of service orchestration are

”
hestrator (NFVO)
be dynamically and thoroughly established. SDN-controller
For being considered.
(SDN-C) NFV orchestrator (NFVO)
Tier 1 single-country CSP from North America
example, for anomaly detection, the company does
not have a system in place for root-cause analysis

” “
VNFormanager
to take corrective
(VNFM) actions. We have yet to deploy a network orchestrator as
VNF manager (VNFM)
we currently rely on VNFM. We plan to use VNFM
Tier 1 multi-country CSP from Europe
until maturity before deploying a network
orchestrator.
”
Tier 1 multi-country CSP from Europe

in network orchestration (CD-NO)

O) 11

SDN-controller (SDN-C)
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
4 Customer expectations from an orchestration solution
CSPs need to offer their network services across digital
channels, whenever they want, wherever they want.
CSPs foresee the use of network orchestrators to help
them deliver such a user experience by composing
highly-curated products and services on demand and
delivering them to the customers in a matter of
minutes. This section introduces the findings from CSP
interviews on what benefits they expect network
orchestrators to bring about and the survey results on
prioritised use cases enabled by NFV orchestration and
WAN automation.
CSPs interviewed for this research largely echoed the
same motivations from survey respondents for the
deployment of network orchestrators (see Figure 4),
namely:
• enabling service lifecycle management
• enabling VNF lifecycle management
• automating network and service configuration and benefits that CSPs expect to realise from network
provisioning for physical networks
• managing network complexity.
In terms of VNF and service lifecycle management,
CSPs agreed that network orchestrators would help to
ease the management of the network through a single
source of information and support differentiated
service quality so as to secure customer loyalty. Some
cautioned that VNF lifecycle management has yet to
work well with large-scale deployment. Others called
out 5G and the associated enterprise opportunities as a
key trigger to resort to network orchestrators.
“ “
A combined OSS and NFVO provides a single
source of information. This makes it easier for the
network management team to deploy, operate and
manage the network. It is also easier to manage
end-to-end life cycle of VNFs as the operations
team has a single source to understand how the
”
network is performing.
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Asia–Pacific
“
Service lifecycle management is an important
revenue driver as it will enable a high quality of
service, which will prove to be an important
differentiator in the consumer experience thus
ensuring loyalty. However, even though vendors
advertise the efficiency of the scale in and scale out
functions, in reality the functions don’t work
”
efficiently at large-scale deployments.
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Asia Pacific
“
We believe that 5G will provide enterprise
business opportunities (such as healthcare and
automated card services and undertaking network
slicing). Therefore, to avail these opportunities, an
aggregator would need to have configuration
mechanisms that enable shorter lead time. The life
cycle management service is important here owing
to its capacity to configure and deploy a service
faster. It also segregates the service on the basis of
”
quality delivery.
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Asia–Pacific
From the perspective of automating networks and
servicing configuration and provisioning of networks,
reduction of human errors, reduced time to market and
more efficient network investment are well recognised
orchestrator deployment. Traffic lifecycle management
is further down the road.
“
We are working to reduce the downtime caused
due to human error, expediting new service delivery.
Orchestration also helps cut down operational costs
significantly and improves productivity by
automating labour-intensive tasks, thus increasing
”
reliability by decreasing human error rates.
Tier 1 multi-country CSP from Europe
The data demand surges would be
accommodated via the dynamic allocation of
existing hardware. This would lead to a reduction of
manual forecasts and planning functions within the
operations department, which would facilitate
further cost savings. It would also improve
investment efficiency, because advanced investment
in capex needed for physical deployments would
”
be avoided.
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Europe
“
Traffic lifecycle management is the next step of
evolution. The IMS, EPC, and other core network
functions will need to be configured onto a common
”
platform to achieve the same.
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Asia–Pacific
12
 It is a top-10 initiative 19%

It is not a top-10 initiative 6%

> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of respondents

Against the backdrop of increasing network complexity, Figure 9 presents the top-2 use cases enabled by NFV
CSPs are looking to network orchestrators as a single orchestration and WAN automation from surveyed
source of information with visibility across domains CSPs. One in four considered vEPC as a high-priority
and as an enabler
Service for a management
lifecycle single customer account
(i.e. service use case. Indeed, it was consistently recognised as the
across various networks.
instantiation, guaranteed service availability/quality) most important use case more times 62% than any other
use case among various segmentations of surveyed
Automating network and service configuration and
CSPs except among Tier 3 and60%

“
provisioning for physical networks 4 CSPs, which instead
As we offer a wide range of services for various assigned greater priority to multi-vendor device/service
Network complexity, i.e. management across hybrid
networks (consisting networksof fixed, broadband, mobile, configuration. Half of APAC and Tier 1 and 2 CSPs (50%
38%
data and enterprise solutions), it is extremely in both groups), considered vEPC as one of the two
VNF lifecycle management (i.e. just-in-time most important 37% use cases. European CSPs have a
important for the companyupdate/patch
instantiation, to offer personalisation
etc.)
wider distribution of top-2 use cases with vEPC and
and create aWesingleare notaccount (acrosson all networks) for vIMS (both 30% of European CSPs) slightly ahead of

”
doing anything orchestrator
2%
customers to access and manage these services.
deployment "One single source
multi-vendor of information
device/service configuration and multi-
across all networks that would make
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Asia–Pacific layer control for IP/optical domain
it easier for the operations team to (both 26% of
Other, please specify 2% deploy and manage networks."
European CSPs).

“
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Orchestration provides visibility of various
Percentage of respondents
network components as one single source of selecting a given answer
information across all networks that would make it
easier for the operations team to deploy and

”
manage networks.
Tier 1 single-country CSP from Asia–Pacific

vEPC 40%

Multi-vendor device/service configuration 33%

End-to-end orchestration 31%

vIMS 27%

vCPE 21%

Multi-layer control for IP/ optical domain 17%

vRAN 13%
"Single Vendor Service Configuration"
Single layer control for IP/optical domain 10% "SD-WAN"
"B2B & B2C"
Other, please specify 8% "Cost arbitrage"

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percentage of respondents who ranked the answer as 1 or 2

FIGURE 9: PRIORITISED USE CASES FOR NETWORK ORCHESTRATION AND WAN AUTOMATION6
[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

Co-development with a vendor partner 40%

Commercial off-the-shelf 21%

6
What are the prioritised
It isuse cases
still enabled
under by NFV orchestration and WAN automation?
consideration 17% [Rank the following options in terms of
importance: 1 being most important, 5 being least important] 13

Outsourced development to a vendor partner 12%

 Percentage of respondents
selecting a given answer

> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

vEPC
5 Deployment options and challenges 40%

Multi-vendor device/service configuration 33%

End-to-end orchestration 31%

This section presents the results and analysis of the

vIMS • to build
27% the technology themselves with some
survey questions and interview discussions pertaining external vendor support around application
vCPE 21%
to the challenges and considerations for deploying development and systems integration
network orchestrators
Multi-layer at scale,
control for IP/ optical ranging from network 17%
domain
• to buy a commercial off-the-shelf software from
orchestrator procurement approaches and preference
vRANto attitude to open 13% vendors specialising in that area of telecoms
of network orchestrator suppliers
software,
"Single with an
Vendor Service expectation that the vendor will
Configuration"
source
Single andcontrol
layer challenges associated
for IP/optical domainwith deploying10% "SD-WAN"
provide a certain level of product support and
orchestrators at scale. "B2B & B2C"
Other, please specify 8% maintenance over time.
"Cost arbitrage"
5.1 CSPs’ network orchestrator procurement
0% 10% 20%
The survey
30%
showed
40%
that 40%
50%
of the CSPs surveyed were
strategies
planning to co-develop the network
Percentage of respondents who ranked the answer as 1 or 2
orchestrator with a
CSPs can take many approaches to implement the vendor partner. This is not surprising given how
NO but most are likely to adopt some sort of a hybrid important NO is for business success, and therefore
approach depending on their risk appetite, availability CSPs would like to retain some level of knowledge and
of in-house technological expertise and the senior- expertise within the company.
level executive commitment to the cause. Historically
when faced with a similar decision, CSPs have
chosen either:

Co-development with a vendor partner 40%

Commercial off-the-shelf 21%

It is still under consideration 17%

Outsourced development to a vendor partner 12%

Building in-house 8%
"We do a mixture of in-house
and NEP-specific orchestrators"
Other, please specify 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percentage of respondents

FIGURE 10: CSPs BUILD VERSUS BUY STRATEGY FOR NETWORK ORCHESTRATORS7
[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

“
The co-development process helps to retain It is quite clear that most CSPs do not have all the
expertise in-house to develop the technology entirely
some key knowledge within the organisation. As the
on their own and are therefore opting for a combination
system evolves,
Network ratherproviders
equipment than relying on a single
(NEPs) 75%
of approaches for different components of the network
vendor, the company undertakes joint projects with orchestrator; for example, procuring a commercial
multiple vendor partners for different tasks.
”
NFVO product with varying degrees of customisations
Operations support systems (OSS) vendors 46%
Tier 1 multi-country CSP from Europe to suit the operations, while also considering the option
of using select open-source components from ONAP
Systems integrators (SIs) and
33%enhancing the functionality using internal
capabilities.

IT vendors 27%

New entrants, start-ups 17%

7
0%
What is your build vs. buy strategy for orchestration 10% [Select
solutions? 20% one
30% 40%
answer only]50% 60% 70% 80% 14
Percentage of respondents selecting a given answer
 Co-development with a vendor partner 40%
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
Commercial off-the-shelf 21%

It is still under consideration 17%

Outsourced development to a vendor partner 12%

On the other hand, 21% of the Building in-house

respondents said that 8% off-the-shelf solution (36% of CSPs in APAC) rather
they would prefer a commercial network orchestrator "We do a mixture of(32%
than co-development in-house
of CSPs in APAC). It is
and NEP-specific orchestrators"
solution from a vendor because they did
Other, please not have2%
specify the noteworthy that 21% of Tier 3 and 4 CSPs considered it
capability to build the solutions in-house but also viable the option of outsourcing development to a
valued the deep domain expertise and knowledge, 0% and 10% vendor
20% partner
30% , relative
40% to 50%12% of all surveyed CSPs.
experience in building and implementing products. Percentage of respondents
5.2 CSPs’ preferences for network orchestrator
Furthermore, such CSPs often work to an aggressive
vendor partners
plan to commercialise NFV/SDN so the quickest way
for them to commercialise a solution is to procure the The survey revealed that 76% of the CSPs showed a
solution from a vendor. clear preference for NEPs as one of the top-2 suppliers
of network orchestrators, followed by OSS vendors
Looking into specific segmentation of surveys CSPs,
and SIs.
those in APAC are more likely to opt for commercial

Network equipment providers (NEPs) 75%

Operations support systems (OSS) vendors 46%

Systems integrators (SIs) 33%

IT vendors 27%

New entrants, start-ups 17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percentage of respondents selecting a given answer

FIGURE 11: PREFERRED SUPPLIERS OF NETWORK ORCHESTRATORS8

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

“
CSPs that chose NEPs as their first choice attributed The NEPs possess a high degree of domain
their preference to: knowledge. They have a good understanding of the
We prefer vendor-supported, non-proprietary
• the deep domain
open sourceknowledge of the
(such as Red HatNEPs
provides for KPIs related to NFV for wireless
37% network functions,
OpenStack VIM) making them an ideal fit for the role of network
• the fact that the NEPs are rapidly migrating to

”
software-ledWe are still reviewing our open-source
businesses orchestrator suppliers.
23%
strategies
• a long history of operating telecoms networks Tier 1 single-country CSP from Europe
We prefer vendor-supported open-source
• understanding of the(that
distribution NFV-is,and
partSDN-related
open source, part 19%
performance requirements proprietary) Some CSPs preferred OSS suppliers over NEPs as
We prefer open source (that is, Open Network their preferred partner because those CSPs thought of
• the ability to overcome
Automation customisation
Protocol difficulties
(ONAP) and Open Source for 15%
the network orchestrator as an enhanced version of the
complex networks. MANO (OSM))
OSS. As such, OSS vendors have a better
understanding of the orchestration requirements and
We don’t prefer open source 6%
can act as an independent option that is not necessarily
tied to the underlying VNFs or NFV infrastructure.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Percentage of respondents

8
Who is/can be your preferred supplier of orchestrators? [Select Top 2] 15
 Building in-house 8%
"We do a mixture of in-house
and NEP-specific orchestrators"
Other, please specify 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
Percentage of respondents

While the option of new entrants is the least popular a vendor partner either to supply the open source
one, selected by 17% of surveyed CSPs, Tier 1 and 2 software or a vendor customised distribution of the
CSPs appeared relatively more courageous to take a open source software – over half of the CSPs (55%)
Network
chanceequipment
with themproviders
on these (NEPs)
(21% of tier 1 and 2 CSPs) 75% This shows that the CSPs are
preferred this approach.
compared with 13% among Tier 3 and 4 CSPs. not entirely confident of executing the open source
Operations strategy
46% on their own, mainly owing to two broad
For support systems
CSPs that (OSS)the
preferred vendors
co-development with
issues:
vendor partners, they were also more willing,
comparedSystems
with theintegrators
overall respondent
(SIs) base, to take 33% • reliability: large-scale open-source deployments
risks by enrolling the help of new entrants and have a propensity to develop a higher level of
start-ups (29% compared with 17%). By contrast, 82% operational issues compared to proprietary software
of CSPs that indicated aITstronger
vendors reliance on vendors, 27%
• support: large-scale deployments require significant
i.e. preferring COTS and outsourced solutions, have a
organisation commitment in terms of engineering
clear preference for NEPs
New entrants, as their ideal supplier of
start-ups 17% and operations support, which may not always be
network orchestrators.
available in-house.
5.3 CSPs’ attitudes towards open-source
0% 10%solutions
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
None of the North American CSPs explicitly expressed
The survey revealed that 71% of the Percentage
CSPs of respondentstheir
selecting a given
dislike answer
of open-source solutions, while featuring
demonstrated a clear commitment to using open- the greatest percentage of CSPs (43% of North
source technologies for network orchestrators, while American CSPs) that were still reviewing their open-
only a small minority (6%) said that they do not prefer source strategies. All three CSPs that explicitly did not
open-source solutions (see Figure 12). like open-source systems are Tier 3 and 4 CSPs.
It was also evident that many CSPs would prefer to use

We prefer vendor-supported, non-proprietary

open source (such as Red Hat provides for 37%
OpenStack VIM)
We are still reviewing our open-source
23%
strategies
We prefer vendor-supported open-source
distribution (that is, part open source, part 19%
proprietary)
We prefer open source (that is, Open Network
Automation Protocol (ONAP) and Open Source 15%
MANO (OSM))

We don’t prefer open source 6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Percentage of respondents

FIGURE 12: ATTITUDE TO OPEN-SOURCE SOLUTIONS9

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

“
For nationwide deployments of orchestration The open-source software is attractive but can only
solutions, big support teams are needed. We have be operationally feasible if an operator has an
already deployedLack
overof4000 servers
technology for NFV systems,
maturity in-house development62% team for the same. However,
and thus need a bigLack
support team for software
of the right skillsets many operators find it60%
difficult to develop and

”
troubleshooting. Our vendor
Changepartner is providing the
management maintain such
44%teams.
supportNeed
team,forwhich helps to reduce the costs.
high levels of customisation Tier 1 single-country
42% CSP from Europe
Lack of organisational readiness 37%
Difficulty in justifying the business case 15%
"Cultural shift to trust the tools"
Lack of budget 12% "Multi-vendor support for onboarding"
9
What is your attitude to open-source orchestration software? [Select one answer only] 16
Lack of executive support 12% "Interoperability"
"Hostile attitude towards a common
Other, please specify 10% VNFM/orchestrator by existing PNF
vendor"
 New entrants, start-ups 17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION:
Percentage ofARE
CSPs respondents selecting
TAKING A STEPWISE a given answer
APPROACH

5.4 Top-4 challenges for CSPs to deploy network need to therefore reskill their existing staff and/or
orchestrators
We prefer at scale non-proprietary
vendor-supported, hire new staff with the requisite skills to succeed in
open source (such as Red Hat provides for this transformation.
37%
CSPs face multiple VIM)
OpenStack technology and organisational
challenges that impede on the pace of network • Need for customisation: even the commercial
We are still deployment.
orchestrator reviewing ourFigure
open-source
13 shows that the orchestration products cannot be quickly
23%
most prominent strategies
four choices were: lack of technology operationalised because each CSP has different
Wematurity, lack of the right skillsets,
prefer vendor-supported change
open-source multiple vendor systems operating within the same
distribution
management (thatand
is, part open source,
the need for highpart
levels of 19%
environment. Additionally, the interoperability of
customisation. proprietary) VNFs across different domains is a challenge as the
We prefer open source (that is, Open Network VNFs would be configured as per the vendor’s own
Automation of technology
• LackProtocol (ONAP)maturity:
and Openthe lack of standards 15%
Source network orchestrator implementation.
and clearMANOspecifications
(OSM)) for network orchestrator has
led to diverse product implementations in the • Change management: the success of orchestration
commercial Wevendor
don’t prefer
spaceopen
and source 6% in
competing solutions depends on the success of broader organisational
the open-source arena, creating fragmentation and change. Changing people’s mindsets away from the
market confusion. Consequently, there 0%has been slow
10% traditional
20% 30% manual40%operations to automation-first
progress on maturing the technology for massPercentage of respondents
mindset is going to be pivotal. Furthermore, the
deployment. change management processes that were designed
for the legacy manual operations must be
• Lack of right skillsets: skillsets of engineering and
reimagined to suit network orchestrator-based
operations personal are still largely network-centric,
automation.
whereas the demands of NFV, SDN and cloud require
a more software and automation centric skills. CSPs

Lack of technology maturity 62%

Lack of the right skillsets 60%
Change management 44%
Need for high levels of customisation 42%
Lack of organisational readiness 37%
Difficulty in justifying the business case 15%
"Cultural shift to trust the tools"
Lack of budget 12% "Multi-vendor support for onboarding"
Lack of executive support 12% "Interoperability"
"Hostile attitude towards a common
Other, please specify 10% VNFM/orchestrator by existing PNF
vendor"
We don’t know where to start 4% "Data model, integration with existing
Legal/regulatory barriers 4% tools”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Percentage of respondents selecting a given answer

FIGURE 13: CHALLENGES OF DEPLOYING NETWORK ORCHESTRATORS10

[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

10
What has been/do you think will be your biggest challenge when you started/start deploying orchestrator[s]? [Select Top 3] 17
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

6 CSP expectations of good network orchestrator vendor partners

The network orchestration space is competitive with
various vendor groups such as NEPs, OSS/
orchestration vendors, and new-entrant ISVs making a
play for business; open-source platforms have also
emerged as a viable alternative, which are being
productised by some vendors and/or being
incorporated within commercial solutions. However,
very few CSPs can realise the vision of full
orchestration without significant external support.
CSPs need a ‘partner’ for their orchestration journey,
be it in enabling them to make sensible buy/build
decisions or co-developing fit for purpose commercial/
custom/open source-based solutions for the CSP’s
unique requirements or offering a build–operate–
transfer model.
Based on research by Analysys Mason on the topic of
network orchestration and the insights generated from
primary research for this study, we have summarised
the key characteristics that CSPs associate with good
network orchestrator vendors.

CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTION

Demonstrate deep CSPs view favourably those vendors that have a deep expertise in networking with R&D
networking expertise resources and understanding of the networks and operations, especially where they are
incumbent.

Possess strong Network orchestration systems will require high levels of customisation to make them suitable
systems integration for the CSP. Systems integration capabilities will be required to operationalise the orchestration
and professional system within the CSP’s automation platform and ecosystem.
services proposition
(or via partners)

Show strong Vendors must clearly articulate their open-source strategy and demonstrate a clear roadmap of
commitment to how they plan to incorporate open-source modules in their orchestration solutions or comply
open-source solutions with open-source initiatives such as ONAP and OSM. CSPs also value vendors’ contribution to
open-source communities and initiatives to tap open source where applicable.
Comply with standards Orchestration vendors must demonstrate standards compliance and actively participate in
industry-wide initiatives. The solutions must support standard data modelling languages such
as NETCONF/YANG/TOSCA, and comply with industry specifications developed by MEF, TMF,
IETF, ETSI and ONF etc.

Build open platforms Orchestration solutions must be open and easy to integrate into cross-domain network
orchestrator (CD-NO), adjunct domain controller and other higher layer operational systems
through open northbound and southbound interfaces/APIs. The solutions must also support
larger ecosystems with open APIs and SDKs for the developer community.
Enable incremental Vendors should offer a flexible deployment approach to enable CSPs to start with either the NFV
deployment path or WAN SDN path for limited domains/services and expand to multiple services/domains
over time.

Demonstrate Vendors should embrace the cloud-based software engineering practices such as microservices
capabilities in cloud based architecture and common software libraries, and DevOps and CI/CD for operations-led
native development, rapid software development. These approaches enable rapid onboarding of new functions to
DevOps and CI/CD meet future requirements.

Provide multi-vendor CSPs expect the network orchestrator to support multi-vendor VNF environment with the ability
support to easily onboard new VNFs and vendors; therefore, it is imperative that the vendor solutions
support multi-vendor VNFs by design.
Incorporate machine CSPs are increasingly demanding ML and AI capabilities in operations. Orchestration solutions
learning and AI that use ML/AI can make just-in-time decisions and predictions for various use cases such as
capabilities scale-in/scale-out, self-healing and closed-loop assurance.
Participate in industry CSPs prefer vendors that demonstrate their commitment to ecosystems because this shows the
and partner vendor’s willingness to collaborate and co-develop solutions and bring in specialised partners
ecosystems for best-of-breed implementations.
Flexible commercial Vendors must not only innovate in technology but also provide innovative commercial models in
model addition to the traditional licensing approaches. CSPs are increasingly demanding usage-based,
pay-as-you-grow, SaaS and success-based models.

FIGURE 14: CSPS’ EXPECTATIONS FROM GOOD NETWORK ORCHESTRATOR VENDOR PARTNERS
[SOURCE: ANALYSYS MASON, 2019]

18
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
7 Conclusions and recommendations
Network orchestration plays a pivotal role in the
operationalisation and automation of NFV- and
SDN-based networks. CSPs are following two distinct
paths to achieve their automation goals, one led by the
network virtualisation and service lifecycle
management, and the second for software-driven
control and automation of the WAN. Ultimately, these
paths converge with the implementation of the
end-to-end cross-domain network orchestration
system that will provide end-to-end control of various
network orchestration and SDN control systems.
CSPs must carefully consider the path towards full
end-to-end orchestration and make suitable choices
for the network orchestration technology. The
technology must demonstrate various traits such as
the ability to provide automated VNF and service
lifecycle management, automating network and service
configuration and provisioning for physical networks,
and provide necessary levels of abstraction to manage
network complexity. In parallel, CSPs can pursue
automation in the WAN by deploying SDN control
technology in existing physical networks even as they
pursue native SDN components in the network.
The journey to end-to-end orchestration is going to be
incremental and will demand another level of skills
and resource commitment from CSPs. However, most
CSPs will find it daunting to execute the initiatives all
by themselves and will need a vendor to support them
through this journey. CSPs will expect to partner with a
vendor that aligns with their orchestration strategy and
will want to co-develop the orchestration technology
with their vendor partner, and in some cases entirely
outsource the development to the partner.
Vendors must demonstrate a multitude of capabilities
to be chosen as a preferred partner for network
orchestration. CSPs favour vendors that possess deep
networking expertise, strong systems integration and
professional services capabilities, and show a strong
commitment to open source technology. Vendors must
also prove their credibility in providing multi-vendor
support and cloud-based software development
approaches such as DevOps and CI/CD.
19
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

About the authors

Anil Rao (Principal Analyst) is the lead analyst for Analysys Mason’s Automated Assurance
and Service Design and Orchestration research programmes, covering a broad range of
topics on the existing and new-age operational systems that will power telcos’ digital
transformation. His main areas of focus include: service creation, provisioning, and service
operations in NFV/SDN-based networks, 5G, IoT, and edge clouds; the use of analytics, ML
and AI to increase operations efficiency and agility; and the broader imperatives around
operations automation and zero-touch networks. In addition to producing quantitative and
qualitative research for both programmes, Anil also works with clients on a range of
consulting engagements such as strategy assessment and advisory, market sizing,
competitive analysis and market positioning, and marketing support through thought-
leadership collateral. Anil is also a frequent speaker and chair at industry events, and holds
a BEng in Computer Science from the University of Mysore and an MBA from Lancaster
University Management School, UK.

Hansang (Andy) He (Consultant, Custom Research) works in Analysys Mason’s Custom

Research team. He has worked on engagements commissioned by a range of clients,
ranging from telecoms operators and industry bodies to quasi-autonomous non-
governmental organisations and vendors. Much of his recent work has focused on network
virtualisation and digital transformation, encompassing case studies underpinned by
quantitative business models, vendor evaluations, competitive landscape studies and
development of go-to-market strategies. He began his career as an analyst covering the
emerging Asia–Pacific (EMAP) region. Andy holds a bachelor’s degree in Electronic and
Communications Engineering from the University of Bristol and a master’s degree in
Management and Strategy from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

This whitepaper was commissioned by Fujitsu. Analysys Mason does not endorse any of the vendor’s products
or services.

Published by Analysys Mason Limited • Bush House • North West Wing • Aldwych • London • WC2B 4PJ • UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7395 9000 • Email: research@analysysmason.com • www.analysysmason.com/research

Registered in England and Wales No. 5177472

© Analysys Mason Limited 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior written permission of the
publisher.

Figures and projections contained in this report are based on publicly available information only and are produced by the
Research Division of Analysys Mason Limited independently of any client-specific work within Analysys Mason Limited. The
opinions expressed are those of the stated authors only.

Analysys Mason Limited recognises that many terms appearing in this report are proprietary; all such trademarks are
acknowledged and every effort has been made to indicate them by the normal UK publishing practice of capitalisation.
However, the presence of a term, in whatever form, does not affect its legal status as a trademark.

Analysys Mason Limited maintains that all reasonable care and skill have been used in the compilation of this publication.
However, Analysys Mason Limited shall not be under any liability for loss or damage (including consequential loss)
whatsoever or howsoever arising as a result of the use of this publication by the customer, his servants, agents or any
third party.

20
 > END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

Analysys Mason’s consulting and research

are uniquely positioned

Analysys Mason is a trusted adviser on telecoms, technology Consulting

and media. We work with our clients, including CSPs,
• We deliver tangible benefits to clients across the telecoms
regulators and end users to:
industry:
• design winning strategies that deliver measurable results - communications and digital service providers, vendors,
financial and strategic investors, private equity and
• make informed decisions based on market intelligence
infrastructure funds, governments, regulators,
and analytical rigour
broadcasters, and service and content providers.
• develop innovative propositions to gain competitive • Our sector specialists understand the distinct local
advantage. challenges facing clients, in addition to the wider effects
We have around 265 staff in 16 offices and are respected of global forces.
worldwide for the exceptional quality of our work, as well as • We are future-focused and help clients understand the
our independence and flexibility in responding to client challenges and opportunities that new technology brings.
needs. For over 30 years, we have been helping clients in
more than 110 countries to maximise their opportunities. Research

• Our dedicated team of analysts track and forecast the

different services accessed by consumers and
T
RM
RANSFO ATION enterprises.
I TAL IOT
DIG • We offer detailed insight into the software, infrastructure
BR and technology delivering those services.
O UD CO
NS
OA

• Clients benefit from regular and timely intelligence, and

CL

Operator
DBA

business direct access to analysts.

UL

Regulation
N

services
D

and policy
TI

and IoT
N

Digital
TIO

NG

economy
L I SA

TOW
VIRTUA

Consumer
ERS

services
Transaction
SMB ICT support
channels and
forecasts
S M A RT

OR K S

Regional
markets
ETW
CIT

RE

Strategy and
SN
IES

Telecoms
SE

planning
software and
ES
AR

EL

H networks
IR
C
DA

A
CE
T

NT
RE 5G
S
SPEC
TRUM M EDIA

21
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH
Research from Analysys Mason
We provide dedicated coverage of developments in the
telecoms, media and technology (TMT) sectors, through a
range of research programmes that focus on different
services and regions of the world
The division consists of a specialised team of analysts, who
provide dedicated coverage of TMT issues and trends. Our
Each subscription programme provides a combination of
quantitative deliverables, including access to more than 3
million consumer and industry data points, as well as
research articles and reports on emerging trends drawn
from our library of research and consulting work.
Our custom research service offers in-depth, tailored
analysis that addresses specific issues to meet your exact
requirements
experts understand not only the complexities of the TMT
sectors, but the unique challenges of companies, regulators
and other stakeholders operating in such a dynamic
industry.
Our subscription research programmes cover the following
key areas.
Alongside our standardised suite of research programmes,
Analysys Mason’s Custom Research team undertakes
specialised, bespoke research projects for clients. The
dedicated team offers tailored investigations and answers
complex questions on markets, competitors and services
with customised industry intelligence and insights.
For more information about our research services, please
visit www.analysysmason.com/research.
22
> END-TO-END NETWORK ORCHESTRATION: CSPs ARE TAKING A STEPWISE APPROACH

Consulting from Analysys Mason

For more than 30 years, our consultants have been results for clients around the world.
bringing the benefits of applied intelligence to enable
Our focus is exclusively on TMT. We advise clients on
clients around the world to make the most of their
regulatory matters, help shape spectrum policy and develop
opportunities
spectrum strategy, support multi-billion dollar investments,
Our clients in the telecoms, media and technology (TMT) advise on operational performance and develop new
sectors operate in dynamic markets where change is business strategies. Such projects result in a depth of
constant. We help shape their understanding of the future knowledge and a range of expertise that sets us apart.
so they can thrive in these demanding conditions. To do that,
we have developed rigorous methodologies that deliver real

REGULATION AND POLICY TRANSACTION SUPPORT

 Policy development and response  Commercial due diligence
 Ex-ante market reviews, remedies,  Technical due diligence
costing …  Mergers and acquisitions (M&As)
 Universal Service Obligation (USO)  Debt and initial public offerings
 Scarce resources: radio spectrum (IPOs)
management, auction support,  Joint-venture structuring
numbering …
CONSULTING  Mid-market financial sponsors
 Ex-post/abuse of dominance
 Postal sector
STRATEGY AND
PLANNING

STRATEGY AND PLANNING

 Commercial expertise
 Technology optimisation
 New digital frontiers
analysysmason.com/consulting

We look beyond the obvious to understand a situation from a

client’s perspective. Most importantly, we never forget that
the point of consultancy is to provide appropriate and
practical solutions. We help clients solve their most
pressing problems, enabling them to go farther, faster and
achieve their commercial objectives.

For more information about our consulting services, please

visit www.analysysmason.com/consulting.

23
Stay connected
You can stay connected by following Analysys Mason
via Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube or RSS feed.

@AnalysysMason
linkedin.com/company/analysys-mason
youtube.com/AnalysysMason
analysysmason.com/RSS/
analysysmason.podbean.com