It had to happen. The relationship between the computer and the network, long regarded as cousins rather than really close family, is under new focus. As the world has started to move from a "one application, one server" mentality to a world embracing and absorbing virtualisation and the dynamic provisioning of functions and services on the fly, the role of the network has changed.

No longer can networks be regarded as pure plumbing enabling disparate systems to exchange data. No longer can it be left to chance how the network responds to dynamic changes in the compute platform.

Many saw that a new architectural platform was required, and the blade computer was born. However, the move to blade computing has been slower than expected, but the evolution of blades has led to a degree of network technology being absorbed in to the chassis. The use of high-speed backplanes and cross-buses had to be developed to meet the needs of the architecture, but these also had to fit in with the environment outside of the chassis as well—the standard Ethernet cabling, the switches, routers and so on. Unfortunately, much of the systems management needed to monitor everything and keep it all working stayed in a mindset more suited to previous architectures—a means of looking at everything as discrete devices, nodes and constructs, with the network, computer and storage being seen as distinct, different environments, albeit all linked through the single pane of glass of the systems management tool of choice.

Now, we have a new player on the field, coming in from an unexpected quarter. Cisco, the 500lb gorilla of the networking market, has decided that the datacentre is there for the taking. A new raft of products under the umbrella name of Unified Computing Services (UCS), all based on the idea of blade computing, but taking the idea a couple of steps further. This will take Cisco into direct competition with those who have been seen as solid partners in the past.

So—will this bold strategy work, and how will everyone else respond?

Cisco's aim is to take the network into the blade chassis, collapsing various aspects to create a more effective platform where much of the peripheral technology can be removed. With systems management built directly into the chassis, Cisco believes that switches, adapters and management modules can all be removed, leading to considerable savings at the support level for workloads on the Cisco blade chassis.

This is no white labelling exercise. Cisco is building its own blades, its own adapters and its own chassis, and the Fabric Extender, a core component of how the whole system works, comes from Cisco's already proven Nexus family.

The message is powerful and it all makes a good sense given that Cisco has a strong name in the datacentre already through its networking capabilities. So what could possibly go wrong?

The obvious first issue is that Cisco is not on the shopping list when it comes to compute power. Sure, if you want a switch, then it is probably close to, or at, the top. But compute power? IBM, HP, Dell, maybe FSC, even Sun—but Cisco? Good new marketing will be required, along with solid support from highly targeted channel partners, to get Cisco on to these shopping lists, and then to ensure that it moves towards the top of the list.

Second, all this may be too much, too early. Quocirca has always been, and remains, a strong blade computing supporter. But, blade computing is not just another form factor that replaces racks—it is a different architecture that requires a different mindset to make the most out of it. For Cisco to come along and push the idea further may just make adoption more difficult for those still struggling with the overall concept of blade—and certainly for those where the systems and network management functions are still seen as discrete practices.

There's also the fact that Cisco has decided to focus on a single architecture—Intel-based, data intensive workloads. IBM supports different architectures for different workloads, using Intel/AMD, Power and Cell processors to support different workloads, with other options still being looked at. HP provides both standard Intel blades as well as Itanium for certain workloads and operating systems. Cisco does not discount bringing other CPU architectures to UCS—but has no solid plans as yet.

Then there's the partner issue. HP used to be Cisco's most effective marketing arm, subjugating its own ProCurve brand to pushing Cisco kit. HP's channel has been a strong Cisco channel. Now, Cisco comes in with a direct competitor to HP's own blade systems—as it does with IBM, another strong partner. Fine—IBM defines the term "technology agnostic", and may even end up selling Cisco blades alongside its own. But HP?

However, Cisco has managed to bring together a solid raft of partners under UCS—Microsoft, unsurprisingly, sees this as a great opportunity, as does RedHat and also Novell for its SuSE operating system. NetApp and EMC also see this as a solution worth backing as any high-density approach needs extra storage, and Oracle also backs it as a means of getting high-density Oracle systems out there.

Cisco's chosen partner for systems management, BMC Software might at first seem strange—one where you would expect that UCS threatens more than promises. However, BMC's BladeLogic technology, combined with its Atrium Orchestrator and CMDB (configuration management database) tools provide the management capabilities built in to the blades. Also, both parties recognise that it is unlikely that many organisations will move rapidly from an existing environment to a 100% UCS one, and as such will require solid systems management across a hybrid environment. Far better to use proven technology from a major independent systems management vendor than to try and home-grow a new solution from the ground up.

Some big systems integrators who have also signed up—Accenture, CSC, TCS and Wipro—will be taking their expertise at the business and systems level to getting UCS into organisations. This will be backed up by a dedicated UCS professional services and support team within Cisco.

Even with the hurdles that Cisco will have to surmount, UCS is a compelling vision. IBM and HP have both implemented certain aspects of the approach, particularly in embedding management solutions in to the chassis, but the big step of simplifying the architecture, removing redundant items and providing highly granular systems management across the whole UCS base is a bold step.

Will UCS be a winner? It deserves to do well, and Quocirca believes that it is in Cisco's hands as to how well it will fare. Targeted partnerships, channel and messaging will be required, and the Cisco salesforce will need whipping into shape to fully understand what is on offer. The response from the likes of HP, IBM and other blade vendors will also have to be seen. Whereas IBM has abdicated its network play, HP has ProCurve, and may respond with force. Then, the battle comes down to those looking at how blades fit within the network, against those looking at how the network fits into the blade.

Let battle commence...