The dance of co opetition
Download
1 / 20

The Dance of Co-Opetition - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 157 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Dance of Co-Opetition' - floyd


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The dance of co opetition l.jpg

The Dance of Co-Opetition

Dave Crocker

Brandenburg Consulting MY: +60 (19) 3299 445

www.brandenburg.com US: +1 (408) 426 9827

[email protected] Fax: +1 (408) 273 6464


Brandenburg consulting l.jpg

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


The internet world today l.jpg
The Internet world today

  • Useful (boring) messaging

  • Web excitement

    • Multi-media

    • Marketing

    • Information access

  • Huge installed base

    • Easy entry

    • Explosive growth

Good News


The internet world today4 l.jpg
The Internet world today

  • Limited bandwidth,

  • Variable delay

  • Information searching difficult

  • Confusing, inadequate security

  • Inconsistent management

  • Proprietary extensions

Bad news


Overview l.jpg
Overview

  • Open vs. proprietary

  • Networking requires open

    • Disturbing trends?

  • Competitive pressures

    • Fiefdoms vs. community

  • Core vs. edges

    • Infrastructure takes time


Open vs proprietary l.jpg
Open vs. proprietary

  • Proprietary

    • Control

    • Focus

    • And timeliness

  • Open

    • Multiple vendors

    • Broad review

    • Generality


The meaning of open l.jpg
The meaning of “open”

Publication:Any may read & implement

Ownership:Group control of specs

Development:Broad participation


Internetworking requires open l.jpg
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


Styles of use l.jpg
Styles of use

  • Receiver pull

    • Interactive sessions

    • Individual, foreground refinement

  • Sender push

    • Messaging

    • Bulk, background distribution

      (Mark Smith, Intel)


Upper vs lower layers l.jpg
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


Competitive pressures l.jpg

Quicker to market

Carefully tailored to vendor need

Creator benefits

Non-interoperability

Different package for every function

Inadequate public review

Competitive pressures


Core vs edges l.jpg
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


Slide13 l.jpg
Core

  • Infrastructure

    • Support along entire path

    • Adoption delay

    • Operation fragility/dependence

    • No central control

  • Time before useful / popular

    • Decade


Slide14 l.jpg
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


Edges l.jpg
Edges

  • Any two hosts

    • Instantaneous utility

    • No special infrastructure benefits

      • Plus

      • Minus

  • Time before useful / popular

    • Year / half-decade


Intra vs inter nets l.jpg
Intra- vs. Inter-nets?

  • Intranets

    • Move to ISP administration style

    • WAN lines usually congested

  • Internets

    • Virtual corporations need public facilities


Integration l.jpg
Integration

  • System operators

    • Hate extra boxes

  • Users

    • Hate extra applications

    • Except when they love them


Facts of life l.jpg
Facts of life

  • Real-time Global Internet

    • 5-10 years, minimum

  • High-bandwidth to global users

    • 5-10 years, minimum


Cliches to live by l.jpg
Cliches to live by

  • Customers buy solutions

  • A product that solves three problems

    • Is better than one that solves only one


Fiefdoms vs community l.jpg
Fiefdoms vs. community?

  • Vendor initiatives

    • Market lead

  • Folded into public standards

    • Open access

    • Open enhancement

It all depends on market demand.


ad