nanog mailing list archives
Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:11:42 -0800
In a message written on Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 01:22:28PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
Say you're doing business in 100 countries, with some stated level of possible autonomy for each business unit.
In all honesty, the original question was a poor straw man for multiple reasons: * Basically nobody does business in 100 countries. Level 3 only claims 60. Verizon does claim 150, but a lot of those are rather arms-length deals. Apple has a "presense" in 97 countries. It's a question about perhaps not a unicorn, but a rare albino pony only seen a few times in the wild! * The companies that do business in these countries rarely have "100 national business units". The chance that all countries are wholy owned subsidiaries created by the corporate parent is zero. They are parterships, co-branding deals, buyouts of existing companies. All of which bring baggage that affects the question more than any any technical details. * Because of how these entities come to be, the chance that the network contains Vendor's A and B, and corporate gets to dictate anything is zero. The network will have Vendors A-Z, plus a few more. Legacy stuff hidden in corners from 50 different M&A activities. Multiple engineering teams, in multiple locations. * Technical people never get to decide the level of "autonomy". A mix of local laws, M&A terms, and other business interests will rule.
Is it better for upper corporate to say "all 100 national business units will use vendor A for edge devices and vendor B for routing", or "all 100 business units shall choose, based on local conditions such as vendor support, a standard set of vendors for their operations"?
Which leads to an easy answer. It's better for upper corporate to negotiate bulk deals (note I did not say one vendor) and offer standard solutions to each national BU, so that the engineering does not need to be repeated 100 times. Simple economies of scale. That said, some number of the national BU's will not follow that advice, for perhaps good and often bad reason. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization, (continued)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Leo Bicknell (Dec 27)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Chris Grundemann (Dec 28)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Christopher Morrow (Dec 28)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Randy Bush (Dec 28)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization David Barak via NANOG (Dec 28)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Chris Grundemann (Dec 29)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Randy Bush (Dec 29)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Chris Grundemann (Dec 28)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Leo Bicknell (Dec 29)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 29)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Leo Bicknell (Dec 29)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization joel jaeggli (Dec 29)
- Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization Chad Dailey (Dec 29)