1 / 20

The Dance of Co-Opetition

The Dance of Co-Opetition. Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting MY: +60 (19) 3299 445 www.brandenburg.com US: +1 (408) 426 9827 dcrocker@brandenburg.com Fax: +1 (408) 273 6464. Dave Crocker Internet since 1972 Email, EDI, Fax, ... TCP/IP, Net mgmt Standards Development

floyd
Download Presentation

The Dance of Co-Opetition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Dance of Co-Opetition Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting MY: +60 (19) 3299 445 www.brandenburg.com US: +1 (408) 426 9827 dcrocker@brandenburg.com Fax: +1 (408) 273 6464

  2. Dave Crocker Internet since 1972 Email, EDI, Fax, ... TCP/IP, Net mgmt Standards Development Product, service MCI Mail, DEC, SGI Startups Consulting Services Internet business planning Product, system design Technical audits Standards track/contribute Brandenburg Consulting

  3. The Internet world today • Useful (boring) messaging • Web excitement • Multi-media • Marketing • Information access • Huge installed base • Easy entry • Explosive growth Good News

  4. The Internet world today • Limited bandwidth, • Variable delay • Information searching difficult • Confusing, inadequate security • Inconsistent management • Proprietary extensions Bad news

  5. Overview • Open vs. proprietary • Networking requires open • Disturbing trends? • Competitive pressures • Fiefdoms vs. community • Core vs. edges • Infrastructure takes time

  6. Open vs. proprietary • Proprietary • Control • Focus • And timeliness • Open • Multiple vendors • Broad review • Generality

  7. The meaning of “open” Publication:Any may read & implement Ownership:Group control of specs Development:Broad participation

  8. Internetworking requires open • Casual interaction • Without prior arrangement • Participants must support same set of capabilities • Fragile basis • Deviation by any components prevents interoperability • Standards “based” isn’t good enough

  9. Styles of use • Receiver pull • Interactive sessions • Individual, foreground refinement • Sender push • Messaging • Bulk, background distribution (Mark Smith, Intel)

  10. Upper vs. lower layers • Open transport / Proprietary applications? • Still requires prior arrangement • Still requires multiple apps for same task • Explosion of user complexity • Increased price

  11. Quicker to market Carefully tailored to vendor need Creator benefits Non-interoperability Different package for every function Inadequate public review Competitive pressures

  12. Core vs. edges... My object Channel Object Secure Web Security EMail Security My object Web Server MTA EMail Web FTP Web Server MTA EMail Secure Secure My object My object My object My object

  13. Core • Infrastructure • Support along entire path • Adoption delay • Operation fragility/dependence • No central control • Time before useful / popular • Decade

  14. IPv6 • Began with simple goal • Increase address space • Became design by committee • Should have deployed 3 years ago • Lucky to get any installed base by 2000

  15. Edges • Any two hosts • Instantaneous utility • No special infrastructure benefits • Plus • Minus • Time before useful / popular • Year / half-decade

  16. Intra- vs. Inter-nets? • Intranets • Move to ISP administration style • WAN lines usually congested • Internets • Virtual corporations need public facilities

  17. Integration • System operators • Hate extra boxes • Users • Hate extra applications • Except when they love them

  18. Facts of life • Real-time Global Internet • 5-10 years, minimum • High-bandwidth to global users • 5-10 years, minimum

  19. Cliches to live by • Customers buy solutions • A product that solves three problems • Is better than one that solves only one

  20. Fiefdoms vs. community? • Vendor initiatives • Market lead • Folded into public standards • Open access • Open enhancement It all depends on market demand.

More Related