[193220] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Grundemann)
Wed Dec 28 13:40:04 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20161227201008.GA31233@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:39:59 -0500
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
An alternative multi-vendor approach is to use 1 vendor per stack layer,
but alternate layer to layer. That is; Vendor A edge router, Vendor B
firewall, Vendor A/C switches, Vendor D anti-SPAM software, etc. This
doesn't address the bug impact issue as well as it alleviates the vendor
"ownership" issue though...
