[193216] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Tue Dec 27 15:10:17 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:10:08 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dtmozMWj3nmXbsp4Hj0WjJ80gsHO6Cx_wE5CcM2nk9Qu9w@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Chris Grunde=
mann wrote:
> If you have a case study, lesson learned, data point, or even just a stro=
ng
> opinion; I'd love to hear it!
I think the high level items are pretty clear here:
1 Vendor
Quicker/easier to implement, staff only needs to learn/configure one
platform, vendor can help end to end, usually fewer interop issues.
Spend may get extra discounts or support bennies.
However one bug can wipe out everything, no ability to compare real
world performance with a competitor, vendor may think they "own" you
come renewal or more sales. Hard to threaten to leave.
2 Vendor
Can be implemented multiple ways, for instance 1 vendor per site
alternating sites, or gear deployed in pairs with one from each vendor
up and down the stack.
Harder to implement, staff needs to know both, all configs must be
done for both, vendors will always blame the other vendor for interop
issues. Twice as much chance of needing to do emergency upgrades.
More resilliance to a single bug, can compare real world performance
of the two vendors. Both vendors will compete hard to get more of your
business, but have a harder time justifing bennies internally due to=20
lower spend.
3 or more Vendors
Generally the same as two-vendors, just ++. That is more of the
pros, and more of the cons. Limited additional upside to having 3
or more active vendors. Generally occurs as a vendor falls out of
favor, two new ones get deployed moving forward, the old one sticks
around for a while.
Having worked places that were single vendor, 2 vendor, and "whatever we
can buy" shops I'll say it basically doesn't matter. What matters is
how you set up the org. Want to be lean on staff, go single vendor.
Want maximum resilliance and/or negotiating power, go 2 vendor. Inherit
a mess, learn to live in a 3+ vendor world. It's not that one is better
than the other, it's just they require different approaches to get the
same outcome.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=HmlQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk--
