[44874] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Single-vendor vs. best-of-breed network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Irwin Lazar)
Fri Dec 21 13:28:33 2001
Message-ID: <53BBA8839E91D51194D200902728944E65CC9A@host3.tbg.com>
From: Irwin Lazar <ILazar@burtongroup.com>
To: 'Pete Kruckenberg' <pete@kruckenberg.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:16:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Kruckenberg [mailto:pete@kruckenberg.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:12 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Single-vendor vs. best-of-breed network
I'm trying to make an informed decision whether moving to a
multi-vendor best-of-breed makes sense for my organization.
This is obviously a complex question, so I am hoping to tap
some (figurative) "grey hair" advise from real-world
experiences for the general areas I should focus on in
making/justifying a decision.
---------
We find the general trend is to go single-vendor whenever possible,
primarily to reduce support and management costs. Engineers/Operators
generally want single vendor, management generally wants best of breed (to
put pressure on suppliers).
Here are the guidelines we use when helping companies develop network
architecture principles (including a position statement on this very topic):
Single Vendor:
Implications: With this principle, the enterprise puts its faith in the
abilities and product direction of a single product or services vendor (per
technology area such as switching/routing, or web hosting). When the product
line fits the business aims of the enterprise, this is often a very
efficient method of doing business.
Pros:
- Interoperability is eased at least for the products from same vendor.
- System integration help is usually available at no cost or as a part of
the purchase price of the hardware or software.
- Total costs may be lower because of the lack of integration costs.
- When network downtime or performance problems are encountered, "finger
pointing" can be reduced with fewer vendors.
Cons:
- If vendor is not tracking mainstream or current technologies, the
enterprise may find itself in a technological "dead end."
- Due to lack of competition, prices may go up once the enterprise is locked
into a particular vendor.
- Exploiting new technologies that may be a high leverage technology for the
enterprise may be very expensive to integrate from a vendor outside the
strategic one.
Best of Breed:
Implications: This principle makes the enterprise the system integrator and
places a premium on in-house talent; some of the "best-of-breed" hardware
and software may never have been integrated in the past. Furthermore, after
the physical integration is complete, it may be difficult to fully monitor
or control the network.
Pros:
- Permits the enterprise to have the best possible type of product or
service in each category.
- Keeps the enterprise on the leading edge of networking technology.
- Prevents being locked into one provider who may fail or who may not have
the needed capabilities.
Cons:
- Can make network management and staff training more difficult due to
multivendor environment.
- Network complexity may be higher because of gateways and/or conversion
boxes.
- Difficult to fix blame when problems arise, due to "finger pointing" by
the various network participants.
irwin
------
Irwin Lazar
Senior Consultant, Burton Group
www.burtongroup.com <http://www.burtongroup.com>
ilazar@burtongroup.com <mailto:ilazar@burtongroup.com>
Office: 703-742-9659
Cell: 703-402-4119
"DrivingNetworkEvolution"
