Welcome back from the holiday! After my intro post last week this is part two and will be focused on Cisco's unified communications offering. Why Cisco, well, they have the most disjointed and incomplete offering currently, but they also have a lot of potential. Read on for some interesting things to think about.
In 2008, Cisco went on a buying spree snapping up Jabber and PostPath. For those of you new to UC, Jabber is a popular XMPP IM platform is PostPath is an "Exchange-clone" email platform. Theoretically this filled two gaping holes in Cisco's UC strategy. However, neither of them are available now in any form. This may become another debacle because of Cisco's inability to create good end user software. Ever try to use the Cisco VPN client on Vista x64? ...exactly my point.
Cisco is also in a bit of a transition. They've said they're basically abandoning the enterprise (on-premise) IM and UC solution with the announcement that all new R&D efforts will be directed to the WebEx Connect SaaS platform. Most people I spoke with didn't even know Cisco had an enterprise UC client.
Enough surface analysis, let's look deeper. Based on the functionality requirements I listed in the first post let's see how Cisco stacks up.
Presence engine - To me, this is another "zero". The enterprise client from cisco has limited presence levels and no real granularity. It's way behind solutions from IBM and Microsoft.
Instant Messaging - The IM client from Cisco is clunky and outdated. They purchased Jabber but don't have anything to show for it yet. This is a big disappointment. The IM portion of WebEx Connect shows some promise.
Federation - The WebEx Connect platform offers what I call a federation alternative. Since it's in the cloud, users from anywhere can be granted permission to access it at a granular level. IMO, this is where the Cisco offering really shines. Since there is no "internal" there's not really an "external" either. granting access to partners is simple and intuitive.
Public IM - They have a forthcoming XMPP gateway appliance and it will be free to interoperate with some (not clear which) public IM networks.
Audio and Video Conferencing from a desktop client - Surprisingly limited from the desktop. 1-1 conferences only. You have to fire up meeting place to meet between more than 2 people. Video Conferencing also requires expensive MUX/MCU appliances.
Web Conferencing - MeetingPlace is a great, basic tool but it hasn't changed much since the mid-90s while the rest of the world has moved on to needing something bigger and better. WebEx is great but it's a pay-per-use solution that kills a large part of the ROI model for UC. Voice and video from conferences are saved in a proprietary format and can't be replayed without the console app.
Messaging Platform - Although Cisco purchased PostPath awhile ago, they currently have nothing to offer in this area.
Mobility - The basic find me follow me functionality is there but other UC-enabled mobility functions are limited.
Collaboration - MeetingPlace (on-premise) has some realtime collaboration but lacks important features like document repositories, wikis, etc. WebEx Connect has some promise in these areas but right now it's clunky and limited.
Extensible API - Nothing really to speak of in this area. Again, Cisco is caught between an outdated enterprise client and a not-ready-yet SaaS offering.
IP Telephony - Cisco has a great solution with Call Manager. It's arguably the industry leader for VoIP and converged voice solutions. Cisco Unity is also a great, proven UM platform.
Remote Access - Not included in the original but Cisco's remote access solution is so asinine that it needs to be mentioned. Cisco calls it "remote worker" and it involves a Cisco router/VPN endpoint sitting at a users home maintaining a persistent VPN tunnel to the office. Besides expensive and and behind the times there's still no excuse for Cisco, a networking company, not to have a more elegant remote access solution.
There's the meat of it. In summary, Cisco has a great VoIP solution but is lacking in the other areas of UC. I'd argue they're irresponsible in claiming to have a "UC offering". They have UC only by the most liberal definitions. Rebranding Cisco Call Manager to "Unified Communications Manager" is classic marketing; all sizzle, no steak. Ranting a bit, doesn't a unified communications solution need to be, you know, unified? Cisco's offering is a kludge of nearly 40 products on distinct platforms with minimal interoperability and synergy.
Overall I'm disappointed in the offering and do not recommend it for companies looking for a UC solution from a single vendor. However, if you're looking for strictly a VoIP platform and plan to tie it into another UC platform then Cisco is a safe bet.
Be sure to check out the next edition of this UC series focused on IBM
Alex Lewis has been involved in the high tech industry for more than 15 years, from satellite antenna design to to executive IT management. He has been a co-author or contributing author for books on Exchange 2003, Exchange 2007, Windows 2003 R2 and Microsoft Technical Specialist Exam Guides. Alex is a senior consultant at Convergent Computing, an IT consulting firm specializing in Microsoft technologies. Alex is involved in many early adopter and TAP programs, working with new technology often 2-3 years before public release. Alex is also a CISSP and leads Convergent's Security and Unified Messaging practices in the field.
The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
Cisco and remote access
While some of the other sections could be debated - it's the remote access analysis that most needs to be revisited.
What I'm assuming you mean by "remote worker" is the Cisco Virtual Office offering.
Remote access with Cisco is as simple as firing up a VPN connection (to access the corporate network) and launching a softphone on your laptop....no persistent VPN connection needed.
r.
6 of one...
Rob, I think you may be missing the point. I shouldn't have to open a VPN connection in order to securely connect to a UC solution located at the corporate office. Why should I need yet another client running when Cisco already forces me to use too many?
The world is moving past dedicated VPNs for end users. That functionality should be built in to the application/platform and be transparent to the user.
So, it doesn't really matter if you need a hardware router or a software client, the point is you need a VPN... and that's sooo 1990s.
Interesting review
You say that
"The world is moving past dedicated VPNs for end users. ..............the point is you need a VPN... and that's sooo 1990s."
I would be very interested in how you came to this conclusion, industry trend data? What Gartner says, what you have seen - We need stats to prove this statement because I just haven't seen anything to support that. I am also interested to understand what is driving the move from VPN.
Also be aware that Unity will not be receiving much focus from Cisco now as they move to their Unity Connect Solution. It will eventually be relegated to a solution for small businesses only and will probably be completely replaced by Unity connect.
Look at CCM v.7.0 and the amount of development that has gone into Unity connect and you will see where their focus and dev $ are going.
end user VPN is dead
VPN clients are going the way of the dodo. I have no problem making that statement and backing it up. The easiest example is Microsoft DirectAccess (Windows 7) - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/enterprise/windows7.mspx (click on DirectAccess)
Applications are getting smarter and providing their own secure transport without the need for a VPN. As this paradigm evolves VPN will simply become unnecessary and disappear.
This is based on my experience with hundreds of companies and discussions with dozens of analysts including those from Gartner and other sources.
MS on Cisco UC
interesting comment from Gurdeep Sing Pall from Microsoft about Cisco's UC offering:
Cisco’s offering is the definition of “un-unified” communications. With more than 40 products, their solution is a patchwork of technologies and networking. The risk for customers is that a patchwork system is slower to roll out, harder to train users, and more expensive to manage and maintain over the long term.
source: http://communicationsserverteam.com/archive/2008/09/19/265.aspx
re End User VPN is dead
I would like to confirm I understand what you mean by end user VPN is dead.
Today a typical VPN solution requires several things to work
Some server infrastructure to manage the VPN
Some software to handle the encryption
A VPN networking component on the end point (PC)
Though not necessary but usually some form of two factor authentication (a token with rotating PIN etc)
Also sometimes organisations install a web layer over the VPN to allow device connectivity from any device via a browser
What is the benefit of having Direct Access over this model?
Ease of use for the user?
Access Anywhere from Any Device?
Costs?
Complexity?
In a direct access (or other non VPN model) how do we check that the system connecting is a "safe" device (i.e. some have installed end point analysis) so that if an "unsecured" (non Corporate PC) is requesting access to the VPN it gets access into the network nased on its trust level (i.e. it doesn't have up to date Virus signatures so only gets into the network to a certain level)?
Thanks.
Homework
If you click around the site I included in my last post and do a little research you'll see that all your concerns addressed through a variety of methods from FCS on the general side to NAC/NAP on the enterprise side. Of course standard (encryoted) and two-factor authentication are available as well.
Did you have any specific scenarios in mind that you were concerned with?
end user VPN concerns
I have looked at the link you sent thanks.
My main area of focus is to understand ...
1. What are the advantages over traditional VPN that are driving organisations to move away from it both from an IT, business and user perspective
Post new comment