Automated Transcript
Hi, I’m David Macfarlane.
I’m Gamma’s Managing Director of our Enterprise and Public Sector division.
I’m delighted you can join us today. James and I look forward to discussing the SD-WAN marketplace and why large organisations and public sectors are investing heavily into this technology.
So SD-WAN, James, as you say, is on the tip of everyone’s tongue, isn’t it? Every enterprise architect and CIO we talk to is saying they must have an SD-WAN.
Absolutely. There’s a perception out there that SD-WAN is cheaper. That’s the tagline many CEOs are looking at, and they’re telling their lead architects and everything, “I want SD-WAN, it’s cheaper.” But that isn’t necessarily the case.
So why do they think it’s cheaper?
I think the big market perception is shaped by reading the Fortinet, Cisco, and Aruba websites, where their first tagline is, “SD-WAN is 100 times cheaper than MPLS.” But that just isn’t the case in the UK. The price differentials are much closer. If you’re in America with massive converged global networks, you’re looking at an SD-WAN solution with local breakouts for different countries, which can bring your I-WAN together. The cost of MPLS with the latency and everything in countries like America and Australia is massive. In places like Dubai, the cost of MPLS is through the roof, £25,000 for 2 Mbps MPLS. Internet is a fraction of that.
So what we’re actually saying is the economy of SD-WAN is a cost saving on the access circuits. But surely the access circuits are of lower quality?
The access circuits are pretty much the same. Whether you’re deploying SD-WAN or MPLS, it’s up to your ISP or telco what they run over it. You could use rival broadband services, but you’ll get a more secure service with MPLS.
So you’re quite right there. The building blocks of a corporate network have access circuits. Access circuit prices are fundamentally based on the service level agreement. Why is FTTP not overly displacing business Ethernet? Because one is a consumer product being used by businesses, and the other is a business product. The fundamental difference is the repair time because businesses want availability. If we’ve got the same access circuit, the CPE (customer premises equipment) at the end of it, we all know SD-WAN is a lot more expensive at that layer. When you build the components, it’s going to be more expensive.
In most cases in the UK, it does start off a bit more expensive.
Anecdotally, I remember a Gartner analyst telling me the problem with SD-WAN in the UK is the country’s not big enough. We have native cover of Ethernet, so why would you need these breakouts? If you’re breaking out to the internet from Glasgow, you probably route to London or Manchester, where all the key internet exchanges are.
Exactly, all follow the same path. It might appear on your network diagram that it’s left your network site, but it’s following the same corporate infrastructures and backbone telco infrastructure until it gets down to London and pops out onto the internet.
So maybe that’s the key point here. SD-WAN technology, at the access layer, has a fantastic ISO model. In an MPLS, you buy the circuit you require to cover the majority of your traffic, typically 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps business Ethernet, and you would back it up with a similar product or a similar access, typically a copper-based service on FTTC or an ADSL or FTTP if available. SD-WAN tries to remove the expensive capacity and put FTTP with FTTC or a low-grade broadband service and call that an enterprise network. Why isn’t that better than the previous solution?
If you’ve got multiple connections, you are buying a consumer product. The SLA, the contention on it, it’s not a better service.
They tend to be asynchronous as well.
Yes, you are better with an Ethernet service if you have a serious corporate business, especially with reliability. Most FTTC circuits have a three-day SLA if you can get that. You are looking at much more with Ethernet.
Do you think SD-WANs are taking the power because SD-WAN was driven by equipment vendors years ago?
Yes, it’s an interesting paradigm shift. The whole market is dominated by 3 or 4 key vendors. Network operators are struggling to create a product and service out of it. Part of the benefit of SD-WAN is giving control back to the organisation.
One of the big benefits of SD-WAN is the central control model. It’s built from the ground up to be a cloud-managed central control model. Traditional routers are making their way there, but the central control model allows very fast, scalable deployment. It’s easy to bring a site online following a standard template, benefiting from quick deployment, quick management, centralised control, and visibility.
When you’re talking to customers and organisations that have either implemented or are considering it, are they buying managed services from network operators?
We’re seeing every customer wanting to buy a fully managed network. They want to buy the circuits, the management of those circuits, and everything to do with networks—DNS, DHCP, remote access services. They want one person to handle network problems. The outsourcing model has been around for years. We saw it kick off pre-2000 with massive growth. Companies, councils, and central government pushed infrastructures out to other companies. Now, we see a shift where companies want one vendor for their network, reducing the number of different companies and internal management complexity.
They need to focus on their core business and let the experts handle SD-WAN, which adds a lot of complexity to deployment. We’ve had organisations try to manage it themselves and then come to us when it becomes overwhelming. The skills within their teams have degraded over time, lacking the technical knowledge to manage these systems effectively.
So one of the fundamental differences between SD-WAN and classic MPLS is the underlying IP routing—one’s a private network, the other a public network. You can run SD-WAN over a private network, but the majority of deployments are over the internet.
The internet is ubiquitous, but there’s a fundamental issue with it—service level agreements. It’s a best-efforts network. Some organisations have priority, but most don’t. Where do you go if there’s a problem?
Most companies can’t offer a service level agreement for your traffic on the internet. If you buy from Gamma, we have our own network, whether it be MPLS or internet, and we can guarantee business-grade internet. We should look at preserving the quality of service on the MPLS side. The internet preserves the packet at the one layer, but no one listens to it at the internet layer. Within the Gamma network, you’ll see good connectivity, but as soon as you leave, you’re at the mercy of the internet.
One of the benefits of a private network is security. Software-defined networks are marketed as a security product. The market is attacked from both sides by network and security operators. Some people prioritise security, while others prioritise routing and control. Enterprises have been limiting internet access to reduce threat vectors. With SD-WAN, if I’m a 400-site retailer, I’ve just multiplied my factors by 400 times. Doesn’t this challenge organisations with SD-WAN?
Organisations are aware of the security challenge, but they’re confident as long as they have a security device at the edge. SD-WAN devices now offer next-generation firewall capabilities, IPsec, and URL categorisation. Security is top of the stack for these devices. Gartner coined the term secure access service edge (SASE), realising the need to protect the edge. Gamma offers a full SIEM service to monitor and report on SD-WAN security.
You’re increasing your vectors but need to treat them as valid and important as the core network vector. Layering your SoC in SIEM, which previously monitored the core, now needs to distribute across many devices.
This technology helps with rapid deployment, addressing challenges like delayed replacement services. For example, we work with construction companies where there’s no infrastructure. Using satellite with SD-WAN provides fast connectivity at the site. Retail stores can open quickly with 4G/5G, satellite, and Ethernet services. SD-WAN allows for a quick deployment model and seamless transition to fixed-line services.
We’re going through the PSTN switch-off, and retailers with a large deployment of copper-based services are struggling. Can SD-WAN help them?
Yes, using cellular and satellite for fast start technology. We can quickly move retailers to alternative access layers with SD-WAN, replicating existing connectivity and moving away from copper lines. Satellite and 5G signals will likely be used.
Retailers are advanced in cloud application adoption. They need fast cloud connectivity for credit card transactions, CCTV, and point of sale. This explains why they’re big adopters of SD-WAN.
Thank you, James. That’s been really interesting. Any closing comments?
We’ve covered a lot. The move to SD-WAN can be expensive, so businesses need to consider if they’re ready. If you’ve moved fully to the cloud and are breaking out all your traffic locally, SD-WAN may be for you. Look at how it aligns with your future technology, the best time to implement, and when to invest. If you’re still on-prem with data centres, MPLS might last a bit longer. Leverage that investment for true value before moving to SD-WAN.
Thanks, James. That was a great debate. I hope you found it of great interest. Keep your eyes open for the next episode, where we’ll explore the value of SD-WAN to large enterprise and public sector organisations in more depth.
