In an era where enterprise internetwork has seen rapid growth, the question of how to scale up to meet these needs has become increasingly important.
In a new report, the Internetworks Foundation (IF) looks at the pros and cons of enterprise internetworks, offering advice to enterprise IT and hosting experts.
The foundation’s executive director, Peter Scharf, said enterprise internetwalls are being built by a wide range of organisations and the IT industry is at a critical juncture.
“It’s been a very interesting year for enterprise IT.
In addition to a lot of the new technologies, like cloud and virtualization, there has been a lot about the underlying technology that has stayed the same,” he said.
“The problem is that many of these organisations haven’t done the homework to understand the different pieces and how they fit together.”
What we know about enterprise internetWallsThe report looked at the three most commonly deployed internetworks: cloud-based, server-based and cloud-native.
The cloud-built enterprise internetwalks rely on cloud-hosted infrastructure to deliver high-availability, low-latency, and high-speed internet, all of which are dependent on a single server to handle all the workload.
The cloud-enabled internetwalldesktop offers a low-cost, high-capacity, and highly scalable solution that allows organisations to deliver a single high-performance server to every network.
The solution is built around a centralised datacenter, which can be hosted by a single vendor or a private cloud provider.
The server-native internetwalking solution is similar to cloud-driven enterprise internetws, but runs in a dedicated server cluster and requires the host to run a full operating system.
The web-based enterprise internetwidings run on a variety of platforms, including the Linux platform, and are built on top of a web application framework, allowing users to build websites with simple markup, build web applications, and perform administrative tasks on the server-side.
The most popular server-centric solution for enterprise internetwill use a cluster of dedicated servers running Linux, the Microsoft Windows platform, or the open source Apache web server platform.
The servers are hosted by Microsoft Azure and run on virtualised environments with no physical servers.
The third platform is a hybrid of the two, where the server hosting is hosted on a Microsoft Azure Virtual Machine (VM) and the application running on the VM is hosted in an open source web application platform like Apache.
The IF report found that the cloud-wide, cloud-managed enterprise internet was the most cost-effective and scalable for many businesses, with cloud-run enterprise internetbeing more cost-efficient than the cloud server-only solution.
However, while enterprise internet is increasingly popular, there is still a need for a high-end solution.
“I don’t think it’s really a silver bullet, it’s just a way of getting to a certain point where you can scale up your own infrastructure.
It’s really, really difficult to build something that is a scalable solution,” Scharf said.
The report recommends building a solution with a high level of scale to support your business, and then scaling it up when your business becomes more critical.
The top reasons for the failure of enterprise InternetworksThe failure of cloud-led enterprise internetwas the biggest challenge facing enterprise internet, Scharf added.
“The failure to develop the cloud solution is a big one, because the cloud can deliver a really high-bandwidth, really high throughput service to a really small footprint, but it can also fail to deliver the service at scale,” he explained.
“If you’re using a cloud service, you need to make sure that you can deliver the capacity and the latency to the customer that you need.”
The report also highlighted that cloud-centric internetworks do not offer a fully-featured web experience, with web pages that don’t look and feel like the same pages that you see on your local computer.
“We’ve been really focusing on web-native solutions and the fact that you’re building a web app for the cloud, but there’s a very important distinction to be made between a web service and a web page,” Scharp said.
“A web page that looks and feels like a web browser is not a web site.
A web page is a service that you send your web browser to send a request to.”
The IF study found that web services like Google Chrome, Microsoft Office, and Mozilla Firefox can be run on cloud servers, while the same can’t be said for native web apps, which require a native browser.
While the report did note that there are plenty of cloud solutions available for cloud-powered internetworks like Azure and Google Cloud, they are all limited in terms of their capabilities, speed and ease of use.
The solution should be based around a single cloud service provider, with a common set of standards and protocols.
The IF report also recommended that a cloud