Welcome to “Complex Made Clear” – where we take the intimidating, untangle the technical, and make the complicated feel conquerable. In this series, we break down complex topics into digestible, easy-to-understand pieces without losing their essential meaning. Whether you’re a seasoned professional looking to grasp new concepts or someone just starting their journey, each article serves as your friendly guide through the maze of modern technology and business concepts. No jargon without explanation, no assumptions about prior knowledge – just clear, straightforward explanations that help you have those “oh, now I get it!” moments. Let’s make the complex clear, together.
As covered in many blogposts on vamsitalkstech.com , the promise of 5G offers unprecedented speed, capacity, and low latency. However, this results in the underlying network infrastructure facing an escalating crisis of complexity. Traditional approaches to network automation, often reliant on manual configurations and siloed systems, are proving inadequate to manage the sheer scale and dynamism of modern networks. This growing complexity is not merely an operational headache; it poses a significant threat to the successful and efficient deployment and management of 5G services, potentially hindering the realization of its full potential and impacting revenue generation for telecommunications operators.
Configuration complexity and what it means for 5G deployments
The root of the above mentioned automation crisis lies in several converging factors. First, the evolution of network technologies has led to a heterogeneous environment comprising legacy 2G, 3G, and 4G networks alongside the burgeoning 5G infrastructure. Managing and orchestrating these disparate systems with their unique configuration requirements and management interfaces creates a significant overhead. Second, the increasing virtualization of network functions (NFV) and the adoption of software-defined networking (SDN), while offering flexibility and agility, introduce another layer of abstraction and complexity. The dynamic nature of virtualized resources and the need for seamless interaction between virtual and physical network elements demand sophisticated and integrated automation capabilities that often exceed the limitations of existing tools and processes.
Furthermore, the disaggregated nature of modern networks, with a growing number of vendors and open interfaces, while fostering innovation, also contributes to complexity. Ensuring interoperability and consistent configuration across diverse equipment and software requires robust and standardized automation frameworks, which are often lacking or inconsistently implemented. The sheer volume of network elements, coupled with the increasing frequency of changes driven by service demands and technological advancements, overwhelms manual configuration processes, leading to errors, inconsistencies, and prolonged service delivery times.
The consequences of this network complexity crisis are far-reaching. Firstly, it significantly increases operational expenditure (OpEx) for operators – which is something almost every telco complains about. Manual configuration and troubleshooting are time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring large teams of highly skilled engineers. Errors resulting from manual processes can lead to network outages, service disruptions, and customer dissatisfaction, further impacting operational costs and revenue. Secondly, the complexity hinders the speed and agility required for 5G deployments and service innovation. The lengthy lead times associated with manual configuration and integration prevent operators from quickly rolling out new 5G services and capitalizing on emerging market opportunities.
Moreover, the lack of comprehensive and integrated automation impedes the ability to effectively monitor and manage network performance in real-time. Identifying and resolving network issues becomes more challenging and time-consuming, potentially impacting the quality of service delivered to end-users. This is particularly critical for latency-sensitive 5G applications such as autonomous vehicles, industrial automation, and mission-critical communications, where even minor network disruptions can have significant consequences.
When “Just Add More Templates” Stops Working
Picture this: you’re a network engineer at a major telco operator, and you’ve just been tasked with deploying a new 5G network slice across 50 edge locations. Each site requires configuration of dozens of network functions, each with hundreds of parameters. Do the math—you’re looking at potentially millions of configuration parameters that need to be coordinated, validated, and maintained across multiple vendors and cloud environments.
What started as a simple shift toward virtualization and cloud-native architectures has evolved into a web of interdependencies so complex that traditional automation approaches are buckling under the pressure. The very technologies that promised to simplify network operations—SDN, NFV, 5G, edge computing—have created new layers of complexity that our existing tools simply weren’t designed to handle.
Figure 1: The exponential growth in network complexity from traditional to cloud-native architectures
As I work with dozens of network operators over the last 7 years, I see there’s a common pattern in their stories. It usually starts with enthusiasm: “We’ll just template everything and use Infrastructure-as-Code!” Six months later, that same enthusiasm has turned into frustration as they realize their template library has grown to thousands of files, each with its own quirks and dependencies.
The fundamental issue isn’t laziness or poor planning—it’s that we’re trying to solve a data management problem with code management tools. Traditional Infrastructure-as-Code approaches treat configuration as code, which works fine when you have a handful of servers to manage. But when you’re dealing with hundreds of edge sites, each requiring slightly different configurations based on local requirements, hardware capabilities, and regulatory constraints, the template approach becomes unwieldy fast.
The Multi-Vendor Integration Nightmare
Let’s talk about something that rarely makes it into vendor presentations: the integration issues inherent in multi-vendor environments. In theory, standards like ETSI NFV and 3GPP should make everything interoperable. In practice, every vendor has their own interpretation of these standards, their own YAML schemas, their own APIs, and their own way of handling edge cases.
Figure 2: The integration complexity multiplies with each additional vendor in multi-vendor deployments
A network architect once described their ONAP deployment as “a beautiful symphony, but every musician is reading from a different sheet of music.” They had managed to get everything working, but the maintenance overhead was crushing. Every vendor update required regression testing across the entire stack, and troubleshooting failures meant diving into logs from six different systems, each with its own logging format.
This isn’t a criticism of network or software ISVs —they’re responding to customer demands for differentiation and innovation. But it highlights a fundamental challenge: how do you maintain agility and innovation while ensuring systems can actually work together reliably at scale?
The Day 2 Operations Chasm
Here’s where things get really interesting—and by interesting, I mean very difficult. Most automation discussions focus on “Day 0” (design) and “Day 1” (deployment) activities. But the real operational challenges live in “Day 2+” operations: ongoing maintenance, scaling, healing, and optimization.
Figure 3: Day 2+ operations represent the majority of a network function’s lifecycle
Traditional automation tools excel at the initial deployment but struggle with the continuous, context-aware decisions required for ongoing operations. When a 5G UPF starts experiencing latency spikes, the system needs to understand not just the immediate symptoms but the broader context: Is this a capacity issue? A configuration drift? A downstream dependency problem? And most critically, what’s the least disruptive way to resolve it?
This is where the promise of closed-loop automation often hits reality. Yes, we can automatically scale resources when CPU utilization hits a threshold. But what happens when the root cause is actually a misconfigured network policy that’s causing traffic to take suboptimal paths? Suddenly, your “smart” automation system is throwing more resources at a problem that could be solved with a configuration change.
The Edge Computing Amplification Effect
Edge computing promised to bring compute resources closer to users, reducing latency and improving performance. What it also brought was a massive amplification of the complexity problem. Instead of managing a few centralized data centers, operators now need to orchestrate potentially thousands of edge locations, each with its own constraints and requirements.
Figure 4: Edge deployment challenges multiply across thousands of distributed locations
The challenge isn’t just scale—it’s also heterogeneity. Your edge sites might include everything from purpose-built edge data centers to small cabinets in retail locations. Some have dedicated network staff; others are maintained by whoever has the keys. Some have gigabit fiber connections; others rely on wireless backhaul that varies with weather conditions.
Traditional centralized orchestration breaks down in this environment. You can’t assume reliable connectivity to your management systems. You can’t assume homogeneous hardware capabilities. And you definitely can’t assume that one-size-fits-all configurations will work across such diverse deployment scenarios.
The Skills Gap Reality Check
Finally, the growing gap between the skills required to manage these complex systems and the skills available in the market. The telecommunications industry is asking network engineers to become experts in Kubernetes, service meshes, cloud-native architectures, and DevOps practices, often while maintaining legacy systems that still require traditional networking knowledge.
Figure 5: The expanding skill gap between traditional networking and cloud-native requirements
This isn’t just about training—it’s about cognitive load. When troubleshooting a service issue requires understanding interactions between Kubernetes pods, Istio service mesh configurations, OpenStack networking, and vendor-specific CNF behaviors, you’re asking engineers to maintain mental models of systems that are orders of magnitude more complex than traditional networks.
The result? Many organizations find themselves dependent on a small number of experts who understand the full stack, creating both operational risk and bottlenecks for change. It’s not sustainable, and it’s not scalable.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
In traditional networks, a misconfiguration might affect a single service or customer segment. In cloud-native environments, where network functions are interconnected through complex dependency graphs, a single error can cascade across multiple services and impact entire customer bases.
Consider the complexity of a 5G network slice. A single slice might span radio access networks, transport networks, and core networks, each managed by different teams using different tools. The slice might include network functions from multiple vendors, each with their own configuration schemas and management interfaces. Now imagine trying to modify that slice configuration while it’s serving live traffic, ensuring zero downtime, and maintaining SLA commitments.
This is the reality that telecommunications operators face every day. The margin for error is essentially zero, but the complexity of the systems they’re managing is growing exponentially.
The Path Forward
The good news? The industry recognizes these challenges and is actively working on solutions. The projects under the Linux Foundation Networking umbrella represent some of the most thoughtful approaches to tackling these complexity challenges. From intent-based automation to standardized infrastructure models, there are emerging patterns that show promise for managing this complexity at scale.
But here’s the key insight: technology alone won’t solve this problem. We need fundamental changes in how we think about configuration management, how we organize teams and processes, and how we design systems for maintainability rather than just initial deployment.
The transition won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. But for organizations willing to invest in new approaches and embrace the principles of cloud-native automation, there’s a path through the complexity crisis. The question isn’t whether these challenges are solvable—it’s whether organizations will adapt quickly enough to stay competitive in an increasingly complex networking landscape.
In our next post, we’ll explore solutions and methodologies that leading-edge projects are developing to address these challenges, in 2025. From intent-driven automation to configuration-as-data approaches, the future of network automation is slowly taking shape.
Featured image Designed by Freepik