A comparison of cloud networking versus traditional networking architectures, highlighting key differences in design, scalability, and management approaches
Cloud networking and traditional networking differ fundamentally in their architecture, scalability, and management. Here's how they compare:
| Feature | Traditional Networking | Cloud Networking |
|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure | Relies on physical devices like routers, switches, and cables deployed on-premises. | Uses virtualized, software-defined networking (SDN) over global cloud infrastructure. |
| Configuration | Static and manual. Changes often require physical intervention or scheduled maintenance windows. | Dynamic and programmatic. Networks, firewalls, and routing can be configured instantly. |
| Scalability | Limited by physical hardware capacity. Scaling often involves significant procurement and setup. | Flexible network deployment with the ability to create additional networks and subnets per region to accommodate workload requirements. |
| Management | Managed locally, often requiring multiple tools and monitoring systems. | Centralized configuration and management from a single interface using the Vultr Customer Portal, API, CLI, or Terraform. |
| Security | Basic protections such as perimeter firewalls and VLANs. Updates can be slow and manual. | Advanced security with network segmentation, distributed firewalls, private networking, and automated rule propagation. |
| Cost | High upfront capital expenditure for hardware and ongoing maintenance costs. | Operational expenditure model. Pay only for resources used, reducing capital and maintenance costs. |
| Reliability | Dependent on single-location hardware. Failover requires manual setup. | Built-in redundancy and global failover. Traffic can route dynamically across Vultr’s multiple regions. |
Vultr’s cloud networking delivers secure, flexible, and scalable connectivity, enabling efficient communication between instances across isolated networks and global infrastructure.