* Most frameworks call for the IT organization to create a set of principles in inter-related areas
The last couple of newsletters looked at some of the risks associated with architecture. In this newsletter we will discuss the fact that in spite of those risks we believe that this is a very important time for IT organizations to develop a WAN architecture. To put that last comment in context, we believe that the need for an architecture increases when there is a lot of change in the environment and we are currently seeing a lot of change underway in the WAN environment.
The last couple of newsletters looked at some of the risks associated with architecture. In this newsletter we will discuss the fact that in spite of those risks we believe that this is a very important time for IT organizations to develop a WAN architecture. To put that last comment in context, we believe that the need for an architecture increases when there is a lot of change in the environment and we are currently seeing a lot of change underway in the WAN environment.
There are a number of frameworks for creating an architecture, including the Zachman framework (An IT architecture framework proposed by John Zachman in “A framework for information systems architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 26, No 3, 1987.) Most of these frameworks call for the IT organization to create a set of principles in inter-related areas such as business, applications and networking.
In most architectural frameworks, the principles have to actually make a stand on something. Put another way, a principle has to state something about which reasonable people could disagree. In that context, the following is not a good principle: “We will deploy a WAN that is highly reliable, secure and cost effective.” It is not a good principle because nobody would really disagree with that statement. A better example of a principle is: “We will look to acquire best in breed solutions and integrate these solutions ourselves.” This is a better example of a principle because reasonable people could argue to the contrary. The contrary being that the organizations would buy fully integrated solutions even if components of that solution were not industry leading in terms of price, performance and functionality.
That particular principle is important in part because as the WAN is becoming more intelligent, one of the questions that IT organizations need to address in their WAN architecture is “How much intelligence belongs in the router and how much belongs in other devices?” That question is particularly timely as Cisco with their Application eXtension Platform (AXP) product allows IT organization to embed applications or perhaps individual Web services into their Integrated Services Router. The AXP represents a fundamentally different approach to hosting applications. The question as to whether or not to host applications in a router is a good example of the types of questions that an architecture needs to address.
We would like to hear from you. What aspects of the WAN does your WAN architecture cover? Have you made a decision as to whether or not you will embed applications inside of your routers?
