你不喜欢它(或讨厌它取决于你的观点)当一个政治家说一件事,然后这些天(约30分钟)YouTube视频弹出显示他们说一些完全相反。哦!讨厌(爱)。所以,我是通过老博客本周和意识到大约两年前我曾认为为什么dual-vendor策略坏的地方。尽管前期资本支出储蓄,长期组织最终可能会花费更多的增加操作成本处理两个供应商,复杂性通货膨胀,和缺乏增强特性。这一切都是有道理的……现在仍然这样。太糟糕了大约2个月前我在博客中写道,一个省钱的好办法是保持竞争你的网络使用双重供应商。提示的YouTube视频请!哦。所以,non-politician,这是我试图解释自己。实际上做双重供应商网络增加了复杂性和最终成本更长期的吗?是的可以在您的网络竞争双重(或供应商)保持较低的初始资本支出费用?是的(见,就像一个政治家,我现在见风使舵! ! !)说真的,策略的选择取决于你的团队和你的网络的成熟。如果你缺乏模板设计,编写架构,良好的团队组织,技术路线图然后使用双重供应商是愚蠢的。你有很多更重要的事情。做我上面列出的东西将会节省更多的钱比拥有双重供应商。 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! :-)
更多的从野外>博客条目:
去思科子网思科的新闻,博客,论坛,安全警报,赠书,等等。