If one talks about the way network development has worked, one of the key differences that one gets to see these days is how the implementation of the network is carried out at the global level. When one talks about conventional networks, they are supposed to be designed in a manner that tends to change the cost base of the whole thing at a considerable level (Akyildiz et al. 2016).
At the same time, they also have the agility and the service capabilities to ensure that the telecom providers can work in a manner that makes a much more robust network possible. The other main aspect that one gets to see these days is how the overwhelming integration among all the stakeholders is being managed. As the networks these days are creating an overwhelming amount of data, in the older networks, there was a likelihood that the log jams are going to be created (Akyildiz et al. 2014). That is not the case here, as the current networks are working in a manner that this demand is going to be handled at a different level. Similarly, there is a change in the way data transfer protocol is developed. In the many conventional networks, at times, packing-based transfer could not be carried out more easily. This is not the case in modern networks, as the radical development of the interface ensures that the oriented layers function at a much broader level, to say the least. Then another advantage that it tends to offer is to make sure how software-defined networking is supposed to be carried out as well as making sure that unrestricted access to the different service providers can be managed in the right manner. It includes the fixed line and the fixed wireless interface as well (Akyildiz et al. 2014).
References
Akyildiz, I. F., Lee, W. Y., Vuran, M. C., & Mohanty, S. (2016). NeXt generation/dynamic spectrum access/cognitive radio wireless networks: A survey. Computer networks, 50(13), 2127-2159.
Akyildiz, I. F., Xie, J., & Mohanty, S. (2014). A survey of mobility management in next-generation all-IP-based wireless systems. IEEE Wireless communications, 11(4), 16-28.
