Part 2 of 3

Much has been made by some vendors about the detailed information required to recognize unified communication traffic in preparation for deployment and policy application. While we acknowledge this can be a complex task, we wonder why so much is made of it in whitepapers and configuration guides for competitive offers.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE: Part 1: Simple is Better When Dealing with Complex

The answer is quite simple. At Exinda, we believe that application recognition / classification should be seen and not heard. Leave it to the professionals, we posit. Our engineers have worked hard at this so you don’t have to.

The truth is, much of the complicated business of identifying a specific traffic flow and classifying it as a certain application is typically based on behavioral or heuristic algorithms. The engineers charged with applying these techniques need to understand the intricacies. It’s what makes them, and the products they build, indispensable.

But users ought not be on the hook for configuring such complicated mechanisms. Something that is lost on some in the business, insisting all the while that “it was hard to build, it should be hard to understand, configure and deploy.” We get the urge to make it complicated. It accrues value and prominence to those invested in “keeping it complicated.” The smart stay smartest.

Enough we say. In today’s complicated networks, the last thing you need is more complication. So, the platforms you depend on to identify and manage network traffic should not place a burden on administrators. Users should not have to configure arcane filtering mechanisms that extract the proverbial “needle in the haystack.” The needle should be gift wrapped and handed to you as part of the natural process of traffic identification.

Which is why we have implemented a metadata capability that simplifies field extraction and presentation. The standard recognition and field presentation solve 90% of all problems. This means that administrators can focus on getting up and running and not on learning the esoteric aspects of packet deconstruction. For those special cases where some customization is needed, a simple menu of available elements is presented making configuration a breeze. For estate-wide deployment, such metadata definitions can be implemented across a network. If, for example, you need to correlate traffic with certain codecs in use, doing so is straightforward.

So, don’t be put off by competitive configuration documentation that makes it sounds like it might be easier to build a moon rocket than a reliable network capable of carrying your unified communications traffic.

And follow a simpler path. The one forged by Exinda solutions.

Stay Tuned Next Week for…

Part 3 – Simple is Better: Adaptive Policy that Makes Sense