Regards, Bernhard Stockman. ------- Forwarded Message IN SEARCH OF OPEN SYSTEMS by Donne Pinsky In the real world, an open system is any system that works with others. Still waiting for Open systems Interconnection to fulfill its promise, business users have turned to a mix of internetworking hardware and software to glue their disparate computer systems into effective networks. The goal, users say, is to be able to continue to work in the multivendor, multiprotocol environments of today, yet access any piece of information or program from any other computer system. At the heart of this practical model is the belief that managers must work to interconnect proprietary equipment and software using purpose-designed internetworking hardware and software, instead of waiting for computer vendors to come up with true OSI products. But things weren't meant to be this way. Four years ago OSI was hailed as the future of networking. In June 1988, close to 10,000 people attended the Enterprise Networking Event, in Baltimore, Maryland, organized by the Corporation for Open Systems International, a consortium working for the promotion of open systems. The attraction: the world's first complete OSI network, using OSI products from some 50 vendors. Recalling the event, industry veterans say that it was a time when major computer vendors were battling to establish a predominant place for their proprietary networking protocols. OSI, they say, was an attempt to agree on a neutral protocol. But in the end, vendors agreed to coexist. And that has led vendors to forge their own definition of open systems based on multiprotocol routing--a definition that has little in common with the OSI standards painstakingly pieced together by the International Standards Organization. The uncomfortable truth is that, four years after the Enterprise Networking Event that announced OSI's arrival, OSI has made little impact where it really matters--in the real user networks. OSI standards define in some detail the protocols and interfaces needed to support an open system. In theory, the seven-layer OSI model allows interoperation between systems that adhere to the model or, at least, incorporate the functionality of each layer at each end of the communications link. Although most users agree that adherence to the OSI model could help them find a longer-term solution to their interconnection problems, the majority recognize the reality that most networks are going to employ many different protocols for years to come. "Only a few years ago, everyone was talking about OSI," says Joe Hielscher, strategic business development manager for multimedia networking requirements at Ungermann-Bass Inc., in Santa Clara, California. "But today, multiprotocol routing has taken over, and from what the market is telling us, it is clearly here to stay." Multiprotocol routing allows users to support different proprietary protocols such as IBM's Systems Network Architecture and Digital Equipment Corp.'s DECNet over the same network. Multiprotocol routers are intelligent devices that direct the flow of data over the corporate network. They also provide a single point of control and management for the numerous protocols that large companies typically use. The chief way users hold these networks together is through Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, which they use to support their multiprotocol traffic (see table). Designed originally for heterogeneous traffic traveling on the research community's Internet network, TCP/IP has spread quickly into commercial networks. "Back in 1988, OSI was touted as the Cadillac of open protocols, whereas TCP/IP was the mid-sized economy car," says Bill Biagi, director of information technology at the Corporation for Open Systems International. "But OSI Products have been slow in coming, whereas TCP/IP has evolved and added new capabilities." FOLLOWING PROTOCOL (Percentage of Traffic on Protocol, Based on a Survey of 400 Multinational Companies) Current In Two Years ------- ------------ OSI 2 4 Bisynchronous 4 3 SNA LU6.2 5 7 DECNet 10 8 Asynchronous 8 6 IPX 15 16 TCP/IP 15 23 SNA SDLC/HDCC 33 28 Source: Business Research Group, of Newton, Massachusetts EXPLOSION IN DEMAND Real-world open systems are as different as the companies that build and use them. Each one uses a blend of different ingredients, such as local and remote bridges, multiprotocol routers and servers, protocol converters, application gateways and intelligent hubs, to hold together the hodgepodge of different computers and networks the company uses. "What you see today in large corporations are huge, sprawling networks with all kinds of devices hanging off of them," says Thomas Wood, senior industry analyst at consultancy Business Research Group, in Newton, Massachusetts. The result has been an explosion in demand for these different multiprotocol internetworking products. The worldwide market was projected to reach $416 million in 1991, up 67 percent from 1990. It should reach $900 million by 1994, according to the Gartner Group Inc., in Stamford, Connecticut. The growth of OSI-based products has crawled by comparison. Real-world open systems reflect the often conflicting priorities of real-world businesses. For example, the recent recession led many companies to implement belt-tightening measures that forced network managers to think first and foremost about protecting their company's existing investments in proprietary systems. Yet they also had to make sure that the company network could grow and change in line with new business requirements. This meant, among other things, progressively migrating applications from the mainframe out to distributed systems, on new and existing sites. The problem: Different information systems were not initially designed to interoperate, and a way--any way--had to be found to do so. Real-world open systems--the cobbling together of many protocols--was the answer. GROWING DISENCHANTMENT The growth of multiprotocol routing also reflects growing user disenchantment with "open" products from computer and communications product vendors. Users claim that very few of them actually live up to the "open" tag of providing for all levels of connectivity for all types of systems that a typical business uses. Many vendors acknowledge this. "Today, 'open' is a meaningless marketing buzzword used by absolutely every vendor out there...we [vendors] have mangled that word beyond recognition," says Michael Zisman, president and chief executive of Soft*Switch Inc., a Wayne, Pennsylvania-based supplier of electronic mail products. In addition, users say that open systems solutions available today are more expensive than what some refer to as the "proprietary glue-ware" that allows different systems to interoperate. "For example, one of our sites in Europe using DEC's VAX systems wanted to use an electronic mail system residing on a IBM mainframe at the company's U.S. headquarters," says Gary Pettifer, technical services manager at Air Products and Chemicals Inc.'s European subsidiary, in Walton on Thames, England. "The open systems solution would have meant installing a DEC gateway to allow the VAX users to communicate with the SNA network on the other side of the ocean, but that would have cost us about 16,000 pounds [$29,600]. So we ended up equipping each one of the PCs at the site with a separate communications card to talk to the mainframe, which cost us less than one-fourth the price." Users say that they have no assurance that pursuing an OSI strategy will guarantee success, so they have a hard time justifying the extra expense of OSI products to their top management. Most users admit that their long-term preference to implement open systems flies in the face of their short-term business requirements. However, OSI supporters say that businesses that do not adopt a long-term commitment to OSI have a lot at risk. "It's really a question of long-term strategy and the perceived importance of the corporate network as an integral part of that strategy," says Chris Sluman, managing consultant a Sema Group Consulting, in London. "Every business has a five-year business plan. But very few have a five-year information systems plan to accompany it." Others doubt that OSI will ever provide users with a viable solution. "Standards have become somewhat of a sham," Business Research Group's Wood says. "What it boils down to is that TCP/IP is here, and OSI is not." Nearly two-thirds of 400 large users recently interviewed by BRG revealed their preference for compatibility with their existing systems over standards-based solutions. "For the long term, we try to adhere to OSI as much as possible," says Hans Peter Angliker, telecoms manager of Swissair, Switzerland's national airline. "But to solve today's problems, it is important that our network technology support multiple protocols." TOUGH GOING Even those companies that have made the long-term OSI commitment find the going tough. Take the case of Hoechst Group, the Frankfurt, Germany-based chemical company. In 1985, Hoechst was on of the first multinationals to adopt an OSI strategy, with the aim of integrating its voice and data communications systems. In 1986, Hoechst also was among the first companies in Europe to implement an X.400-based E-mail system. "Our move was intended to put pressure on vendors by showing that we were serious about open systems. But the move to OSI has been disappointingly slow," says Harald Nottebohm, Hoechst's recently retired head of voice and data communications. Nottebohm says that Hoechst's top management support for OSI was key to the company's commitment to OSI. Despite this, however, he says that a continuous debate over what the company's priorities should be went on between the planners and the operations staff within his own department. "People responsible for the day-to-day operations of the network would say, 'It is all well and good to pursue open systems, but what do we do about the problems we have to solve today?'," he says. Yet despite OSI's lack of real impact, most observers agree that the OSI movement had some very positive side effects. "Vendors needed something to motivate them to become more open, and the emphasis on open systems made them far more open than they would have become on their own," says Ungermann-Bass' Hielscher. "And perhaps in the future, OSI may still become a dominant language. But...things certainly didn't happen the way OSI zealots thought or hoped they would." ------- End of Forwarded Message