Don't you just love it (or hate it depending on your point of view) when a politician says one thing and then (within about 30 minutes these days) a YouTube video pops up showing them saying something completely opposite. Oops! Hate (love) that.
So, I was looking through old blogs this week and realized that about two years ago I had argued why dual-vendor strategies where bad. Despite the upfront CAPEX savings, organizations would probably end up spending more over the long-term on increased operation costs dealing with two vendors, complexity inflation, and lack of enhanced features. It all made sense...and still does.
Too bad about 2 months ago I blogged that a good way to save money was to keep competition in your network using dual vendors. Cue the YouTube video please! Oops. So, as a non-politician, here is my attempt to explain myself.
Do dual vendors networks add complexity and actually end up costing more in the long-run? Yes
Can having competition in your network from dual (or more vendors) keep initial CAPEX costs low? Yes
(See, just like a politician, I now have it both ways!!!)
Seriously, which strategy to choose depends on your team and your network's maturity. If you lack template designs, a written architecture, good team organization, and a technology roadmap then using dual vendors is just silly. You have a lot more important things to work on. Doing the things I listed above will save a lot more money than having dual vendors. And, since you don't have good standards and network design processes, then adding another vendor could be a disaster. You need to simplify your network environment, not add complexity. Call you Cisco sales rep and profess your undying love for that single digit discount he is offering you. Buy nothing but Cisco while you work on, at minimum, template designs, and a written architecture.
However, if your network architecture and the network itself are mature and well documented, then you have an opportunity to introduce another vendor into the environment to save more money. You've already optimized your environment by doing proper network design/architecture, now you can attack the marginal costs with competition between vendors. With a written architecture, templates, and a mature engineering discipline you will be able to incorporate another vendor's technology.
I hope this clears up any confusion. Please contribute to my campaign! :-)
More >From the Field blog entries:
Cisco's New "Validated Architecture for Long Distance VMotion" is Cheap Marketing
Arista's New vEOS Providing Competition for the Cisco Nexus 1000V
It's One of Those Opinionated Days Again
A Private Extranet for Cloud Computing
It's Really Only Partly Cloudy Out There
Networking in the (Thunder) Clouds
Go to Cisco Subnet for more Cisco news, blogs, discussion forums, security alerts, book giveaways, and more.
Michael Morris is a communications engineering manager at a $3-billion high-tech company. His background is in enterprise WANs working with telcos and developing large-scale routing designs. He has worked on networks at government and corporate organizations, including networks at two Fortune 10 companies. In his current role, he leads a team of 10 engineers responsible for large-scale IT networking projects and architectural standards for data networks, storage area networks, IP telephony, contact centers, and security. Michael is CCIE #11733 and recently became one of the first three Cisco Certified Design Experts (CCDE) ever (#20080002). He has 11 years experience in networking and communications, including four years as a paratrooper in the U.S. Army. He has a bachelor's degree in MIS from the University at Buffalo and is working on his MBA from NC State University. In 2008, he was awarded the Network Professional Association (NPA) Professional Excellence and Innovation Award for his work on network architecture, templates and enterprise MPLS design.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Awesome!!!
Hi Michael,
Good to see that you have the Good'Ol technical guy spirit and you are not afraid to eat your own words. Never seen a politician do that before...LOL
Regards,
Haroon
We are dual vendor now... we
We are dual vendor now... we simplified our network by eliminating Cisco proprietary technologies and designing our network around open standards... and using specialized boxes for certain functions.. like a NAT god box..
So now if Cisco's ASR9000 melts Junipers M320 in a test... we can swap that out without a huge meltdown.. since they are just doing MPLS, ISIS and BGP anyway...
Same Message
I couldn't agree more....
I too wrote a blog called "one vendor PLEASE...."
http://hfreel.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/one-vendor-please/
I still feel this way and although there are occasions where a product from another vendor may be a good idea, overall Network Management is made so much easier with only one vendor...
Post new comment