nanog mailing list archives
Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making
From: Blaine Christian <blaine () blaines net>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:33:03 -0500
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110405-juniper-cisco- hacker.htmlCisco, Juniper, or vendor "X". We all benefit by having "genetic diversity" in our routing/switching systems. I have been bit hard, as many of us on this thread have been bit, by bugs in vendor software/hardware. Support your IETF! Don't use proprietary protocols and insist on interoperability. If you have the wherewithal install at least two different vendors for your critical services. Then make them play nice together!How do the operators/engineers explain to 'management', or whomever asks, the 'training issues' that always crop up when more than one vendor are proposed? Has anyone had good luck with this arguement? (my answer is sort of along the lines of: "Its just a router, no matter the vendor and theyall have command-line help" but that's not always recieved well :) )Just curious as I'm sure there are folks stuck in an all vendor X shop who look over the electronic fence and see vendor Y with 'so much better' or 'so much faster' or 'so much more blinkly lighty'... and try to have theirmanagement agree to purchasing new devices :)
Well, the last time I just whined a lot ? <grin>Seriously, we actually put together a presentation that described a series of major events that have occurred through the use of monoculture networks/systems and stated that for many financial/ security reasons it is best to maintain at least two vendors.
We covered the followingo Security Implications: How monoculture networks/operating systems are prone to attack. o Financial Impact: How managing multiple vendors can reduce long term expense. o Stability: How monoculture networks/systems are prone to network/ system wide failures. o Viability: How existing technology is capable of interop and how we, the engineering team, were capable of making it happen. o Customer demand: How our customers actually "felt better" about our service as a result of it's genetic diversity.
Regards, Blaine
Current thread:
- Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making J. Oquendo (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Jared Mauch (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Robert Boyle (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Eric Gauthier (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making James Baldwin (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Eric Germann (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Blaine Christian (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Blaine Christian (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Tom Sands (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Warren Kumari (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Robert Boyle (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Jared Mauch (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Michael . Dillon (Nov 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Roy S. Rapoport (Nov 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Hannigan, Martin (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Simon Waters (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Christian Kuhtz (Nov 07)
- RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Michael . Dillon (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Simon Waters (Nov 07)
- RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Hannigan, Martin (Nov 07)
- Re: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making Christian Kuhtz (Nov 07)