Container

Notice: The views and opinions expressed here are collective derived from the members of this ONUG Working Group and are not the express opinion of any individual or companies. 

SPRING 2018

ONUG Spring 2018–May 8 & 9 @ UCSF, San Francisco, hosted by Kaiser Permanente 

Container Working Group Chairs:

Neal Secher, State Street Bank
Mukesh Gupta, Illumio

Secretary:

 

Spring 2018 Meeting Schedule (via WebEx):

Every other Thursday @ 3:00 pm ET starting February 1, 2018

Spring 2018 ONUG Workshops:

March 6 & 7, 2018, Sunnyvale, CA

September 2018, NYC (dates and location tbd)

ONUG Container Networking

Members (Sponsors to be added as they are confirmed):

Ravi Malhotra BNY Mellon
Chris Cheu Cigna
Kunal Mahajan Columbia
Fred Lima eBay
Manoj Koshti Ellie Mae
Snehal Patel Gap
Alex Kvyat Kaiser Permanente
Rhett Dillingham Moor Insights & Strategy
John Hoffman Salesforce
Rodger Xu Teranet
Sean Wang University of British Columbia
Srinivas Vegesna Criterion
Pramod Venkatesh Criterion
Naresh Kumar Criterion
Don Fedyk HPE
George Zhao Huawei
Dilip Sundarraj Juniper
Aniket Daptari Juniper
Jeff Tantsura Nuage
Cheng Liu Verizon
Daniel Johnson Verizon

 

July 20 2017 – Meeting Notes

ONUG Open Hybrid Cloud Working Group–July 20, 2017, Meeting Notes

BY BOB WYSOCKI, GE

Nick Review of recent events

– 2-day workshop at BNY Mellon in Jul has been pushed out until Sept 12/13; Nick to send formal announcement of the new date/time/logistics

– Reinforced paradigm that the HCWG is considered umbrella group for Hybrid Cloud; various work efforts will be farmed out to other groups (SDWAN Exchange, Monitoring & Analytics, SW-Defined Security) to develop requirements/papers/POC’s in their assigned areas.

– Right Stuff Awards will be presented during ONUG Fall – 3 independent judges to award vendor efforts to deliver PoC’s against defined enterprise requirements

– HCWG will focus on development of requirements for Container Orchestration for ONUG Fall; target companies such as Google/K8S, Mesos, Docker, etc to respond and conduct demos at the event

– HCWG will document 1-pager of such requirements – Aaron/Cisco will lead effort to generate questions, requirements enterprises have.  Will be inclusive of not only how the tools operate, but how much effort it takes to stand them up, and their capability to deploy to multiple environments (eg, private clouds, multiple CSP’s)

– Discussion that it would be interesting to have a session at ONUG Fall looking at state of containers vs serverless; compare and contrast – to educate the community

– Nick called for HCWG to take action to name 1-2 vendor co-chairs for the Committee to help flush out details; other ONUG WG’s have employed a similar approach successfully

– Bob recommended reaching out to providers such as Cloud Tech Partners as entities that have skill, motivation, and resources to help do some of the heavy lifting in developing material against the direction we give them

– Discussion on where work towards Cloud Connectors (eg, Equinix Cloud Exchange) belongs – in OSE or HCWG committees; to be discussed further but HCWG sees this as ‘connectivity’ issue that should be addressed by OSE

Actions:

1) Nick to revitalize efforts with Gap, FedEx, Citi, Merck to engage with 451 Research to complete the TCO Cloud Model.  Bob already connected Eric to Russell Cozart of GE

2) Aaron to lead drafting of Container Orchestration requirements/questions for next meeting on Aug 4th; Aaron will publish a starting point and all other HCWG members should add their thoughts.

3) Carlos to lead drafting of taxonomy for HC for next meeting on Aug 4th.  Carlos will publish a starting point and all other HCWG members should add their thoughts.  Will represent program needs of typical enterprise in areas of compliance, security, governance, data gravity, cost, etc.  Once we have defined taxonomy, we will determine how much to bite off for ONUG Fall – continuing to deliver pieces in shorter work efforts than go for big bang that would take longer

4) HCWG members need to indicate to Nick who will be attending the Sept 2-day workshop

5) Bob, Nick, Carlos to reach out to CTP to gauge interest in assisting with efforts

Attendees:

Aaron Levin – Cisco

Mick Curry – Fidelity

George Zhao – Huawei

Tige Chastain – Gap

Yusuke ? 

Carlos Matos – BoA

Nick Lippis – ONUG

Jeannette Tibbetts – ONUG

Bob Wysocki – ONUG

July 6 2017 – Meeting Notes

ONUG Open Hybrid Cloud Working Group–July 6, 2017, Meeting Notes

BY BOB WYSOCKI, GE

ACTIONS:

Cloud TCO Model

We will move forward with Cloud TCO Model with 451 Research such that we will have an initial result set for ONUG Fall.  Eric@451 will be sending out an Engagement Letter that enterprise HCWG members can use to easily socialize the intent and benefit of participation internally within their orgs.  All enterprises participating in the WG are welcome to participate.  We will specifically target GE, Citi, FedEx, Gap and Merck as initial participants.  Bob will be sending emails to those entities seeking confirmation of their participation.  Eric will send the Engagement Letter and Questionnaire to Bob who will distribute to the entire WG

Volunteers Needed!

We need enterprise WG members to raise their hand to allocate short but important engagement on 3 fronts over the course of the next 1-2 months

1) Develop PoC Guidelines to give to vendor community on both Cloud Abstraction through Broker models or Container Orchestration approach such that the vendors can develop and present PoC at ONUG Fall

2) Develop high-level requirements for Container Orchestration companies that we can present to them, and have a select group of Container Orch vendors come on-stage at ONUG Fall to address our requirements (emulating approach we took with CSP’s at ONUG Spring)

3) Present your company’s Hybrid Cloud strategy and challenges you are having to design & execute in brief 10-20 min presentation that can be done at BNY Mellon on Jul 25/26 or at San Fran 2-day session to be set TBD in Sept.

For 1 & 2 above, perhaps we can have an ONUG HCWG member take the lead for each so we have a driver accountable to deliver, and other members agree to participate under that person’s direction.

Please raise your hand or else we will come solicit your participation 🙂

Lastly:  Need to confirm that ONUG SDWAN will run with Cloud Connectivity POC’s for ONUG Fall.  Nick/Snehal – let’ confirm who is connecting these dots.

March 2, 2017 – Meeting Notes

ONUG Open Hybrid Cloud Working Group–March 2, 2017, Meeting Notes

BY BOB WYSOCKI, GE

EC3 meeting Feb 28th

Good meeting conducted between our Working Group and E3C

Strong alignment stated by Goldman Sachs of what they need to work on vs our Working Groups

High focus seems to center on connecting to CSP’s and how to best do that – perhaps an area for “starter kit collaboration”

ACTION:  Nick to wait on proposed next steps from E3C

451 Research TCO Model

Nick will ask 451 to provide incentive for companies to participate; eg, 3-month advance view of results/deeper dive & personalized session to go over results

451 is behind on their strawman

ACTION:  Members should be discussing their ability to participate/share data internally within their enterprises to gain agreement/identify any limitations

  • Initial target list of respondents:  GE, Fidelity, FedEx, Citi, Merck
  • Bob to follow-up this week to confirm with each company

ACTION: 

  • Bob asked Eric for ETA to help set expectations
  • Nick asked Eric for a “letter of engagement” that IT executives can use to communicate the terms of engagement, anonymity and value to them, so to speed up the approval process

CSP Barrier draft input

Discussion surround fact that only 4 companies have provider “CSP barrier” input to date.

Nick stated that this is a basic need to fuel the Working Group; please take the time to participate

Discussed panel candidates for the ONUG Spring Session

ACTION: 

  • Bob to follow-up with individual companies yet to respond to stimulate their input
  • Nick to invite CSP participants to ONUG Working Group meeting on Mar 26th to review top 5 barrier input
  • Nick to invite Equinix to participate in ONUG Spring
  • Nick to reach out to desired panel members

 

June 8, 2017 – Meeting Notes

ONUG Open Hybrid Cloud Working Group–June 8, 2017, Meeting Notes

BY BOB WYSOCKI, GE

Minutes are in 2 parts

  1. A) Brief summary of Nick’s ONUG Spring review
  2. B) Proposal on structure/approach moving to ONUG Fall
  1. A) ONUG Spring ’17

Nick declared ONUG Spring to be “major success” – CSP’s on-stage responding to the collective requirements of the enterprise for the first time!

Polling data revealed:

– ~75% of enterprises will adopt cloud within next 3 years

– 71% of enterprises believe they will not build their own data centers past 2020

– Barriers to adopting cloud are app architecture, portability, connectivity, training, seurity & compliance

– over 60% of enterprises intend to deploy to more than one CSP

– Prioritized desired solutions surround Connectivity, Portability and Encryption Methods

– Participants are looking to ONUG for help in pushing use cases into demos and real-life deployments, defining and delivering reference architectures

Congratulations to all on continuing to grow ONUG to have more industry relevance and participation!!

  1. B) Proposal for ONUG Fall ’17

We discussed transitioning the Hybrid Cloud from “Working Group” to “Initiative”…move from “thinking” to “doing”

Goal is to drive the Hybrid Cloud framework and its realization on behalf of Enterprises with direct CSP/Service Provider engagement

Hybrid Cloud is considered “umbrella” instrument for the framework but farms out realization of certain components to other ONUG Initiative groups.

Proposed work to be done between now and ONUG Fall – leveraging both two face-face sessions (BNY Mellon, Jul 25/25; SF Sept TBD) as well as bi-monthly WebEx meetings:

– Agree on framework components (draft below to edit)

– Agree which ONUG Group has responsibility per component (draft below to edit)

– Agree on the ONUG Fall deliverable in form of POC/demo per component (draft below to edit)

– Agree on ownership of the deliverables – who is accountable to lead execution (for discussion)

Proposed Hybrid Cloud Framework consists of following elements (we can discuss to add/delete/edit):

1) Connectivity – owned by ONUG SDWAN Group – Fall deliverable:  working model(s)/demo(s) of how enterprises can best connect Data Centers/Remote Sites to Multiple CSP’s

2) App Portability – owned by ONUG HC Group – Fall deliverable:  working model(s)/demo(s) of app(s) that can port across private cloud/multiple CSP via containers

3) Security – owned by ONUG SW-Defined Security Services – Fall deliverable:  working model(s)/demo(s) of one of 3 primary use cases identified in Spring ’17

4) Visibility – owned by ONUG Monitoring & Analytics – Fall deliverable:  working model(s)/demo(s) of one of use cases identified in Spring ’17

5) Cloud TCO – owned by 451 Research – Fall deliverable – creation/delivery of TCO model, completed by 3-4 primary ONUG enterprises

6) Training – owned by Steering Group TBD – Fall deliverable – EITHER:  Expand ONUG Academy with additional vendor participants offering courses at ONUG Fall beyond Google AND/OR: (more ambitious) Develop vendor-neutral cloud education/certification program [first deliverable has higher probability?]

Proposed next steps:  

  1. i) Team discussion on Thu Jun 22 -> does this make sense? Other (contrarian) ideas welcome.  Augmentation/Edit of this construct welcome.  If you can’t join Thu, please send thoughts via email.
  2. ii) If adopted, Nick – need your help to facilitate adoption of this construct across the other WG/Initiatives – get their buy-in

iii) Team/Carlos:  Need to decide among Hybrid Cloud:  how/who do we engage to produce Fall deliverable regarding container-based demos

  1. iv) Nick – assume you will address the training piece on your ONUG Evangelical tour; also look for where CSP’s & Service Providers want to plug in above
  2. v) Nick/Carlos – need to get with Eric/451 to see where they are at – maybe determine who/how to provide some light PM to ensure this moves by Fall

June 22, 2017 – Meeting Notes

ONUG Open Hybrid Cloud Working Group–June 22, 2017, Meeting Notes

BY BOB WYSOCKI, GE

Team reviewed proposed framework for transitioning HCWG into an Initiative as well as farming out certain portions of the framework to sister ONUG teams.  Overall feedback was positive with following distinctive points made during discussion.

Most of conversation focused on the topics of Cloud Connectivity and Cloud Abstraction.  We hypothesized that there are 4 somewhat different/somewhat overlapping approaches outlined below.  None of these are considered more correct than others – simply that there are different approaches active in industry as there always are.  We discussed that any/all of these approaches are potential areas to demo as POC’s and/or reference architectures at ONUG Fall ’17.  Having more than one approach demonstrated is a good thing and better than having fewer options. 

Team discussed that most important thing to understand first is application architecture and requirements.  None of these options should be implemented simply because they are popular or trendy.  Enterprises must understand their specific needs, and the trade-offs gained/lost by employing one approach over another.  Developers therefore have significant power in enabling (or disabling) portability in defining how the application architecture based on business requirements.  While time to develop and deploy an application can be greatly reduced by leveraging existing CSP higher-level services, this very benefit can later negatively impact portability.  Good basic application design should be of primary consideration and concern and take precedence over an otherwise tangential goal to achieve portability just to have portability.  The Team also emphasized that its highly desirable to have a tool set/approach that spans the use of private and public clouds, that can assist with both legacy and newer applications – however there is a realization that having one thing that fits all requirements is not likely realistic. 

The four approaches discussed were as follows:

1)      Cloud Abstraction can be accomplished through the use of Cloud Management Brokers. Clickr, Terraform and Cisco Cloud Suite were cited as examples by Ti/Gap and Aaron/Cisco as having some experience in this space but there are certainly others. Fugue was mentioned as being on AWS today but other CSP’s being on their near-term road map.  Brokers have the advantage of enabling portability of workloads across multiple CSP’s and some even have capability to conduct real-time analysis of workloads to identify the potential cost savings to be gained by moving the app/workload to a different CSP other than where it is running today.  Brokers work best when basic capabilities of compute, storage are needed.  Brokers are not as effective when higher-level services offered by only one CSP (eg, AWS RDS) are required by or add strong value to your specific application.  A Broker’s ability to abstract a given service capability across CSP’s by definition will lag in time from when that feature is available from the CSP’s as the Broker requires their own time to develop the abstraction mechanism. 

2)      Containers and Container Orchestration tools are maturing and gaining popularity, especially Kubernetes in the marketplace.  Containerization can provide benefit as a good mechanism to abstract the infrastructure details away from the Developer and Operations for a given application, and enable that application to be portable from one CSP to another, or to port from private to public infrastructure.  Containers will work best for modern cloud-native applications being newly developed, especially when they can be constructed in a microservice fashion. There are caveats to consider however and containers are not a silver bullet.  As stated, not all apps are suitable for containerization; they may be monolithic legacy apps.  They may not be able to take advantage of CSP higher-level specific value-added services.  They may add more value to application logic layer and less value to persistence storage/retrieval of data.  Differences in network segmentation approaches by CSP’s can be a complicating factor.

3)      Cloud Connectivity can be provided between an enterprise and multiple CSP’s from a number of maturing SD-WAN providers.  Those providers with virtual appliances that can run natively within the CSP fabric can provide an enterprise with facilitated access directly to those CSP services.  Viptela was cited as an example by Gap and GE has having experience but there are others. SD-WAN providers can provide routing optimization in real-time but in current form, represent a form of vendor lock-in on their own.

4)      Other vendors provide Cloud Connectivity brokerage services that can also facilitate an enterprise’s connection to multiple CSP’s; Equinix and Packet Fabrics were examples cited as providing value today.  Typically such providers enable an enterprise to connect virtually to multiple CSP’s and/or SaaS partners via a single direct pipe in a co-location facility available in various regions across the globe.

In summary, the team felt that POC’s in some or all of these areas for ONUG Fall may be best, and to highlight pros and cons of each for enterprises to consider which applies best to their unique needs.  The Team warned that application portability may not be truly available in a general way for ONUG Fall ’17 but for an ONUG event yet in potentially distant future. 

Actions:

Bob to publish minutes above to document discussion and socialize to broader Team for those not on the call.

Bob to discuss status offline with Nick and Carlos to gain their feedback… are we headed in positive direction, or need course correction?

Snehal to make introduction between Carlos/Bob to SD WAN Co-Chairs to discuss how to tighten collaboration between the teams under the proposed framework

Bob to reach out to Eric/451 Research to ascertain latest status of TCO Model