Multivendor corporate network: myths and reality
When choosing network equipment, you need to pay attention to alternative suppliers. This will provide a functional network solution for a reasonable price and lower total cost of ownership.
Which approach is better to choose when building a data network: use equipment from the same manufacturer or solutions from different vendors? It seems obvious that the first option will help avoid incompatibility problems, and the cost of operating a homogeneous network infrastructure should be less. The idea of ​​unifying the network, building it on the equipment of a single manufacturer, is being promoted by leading vendors as a way to simplify operation, improve reliability and reduce the total cost of ownership of network infrastructure ( TCO ). Yes, and Russian system integrators often state that the use of products from one vendor makes it possible to achieve the most effective, harmonious interaction of all system components, which is especially important for large-scale integration projects, where the emphasis is on performance and fault tolerance.
In most cases, there is no basis for this argument in terms of financial and operational benefits, functionality or reliability. A network built on the equipment of a single vendor (for example, Cisco) will not necessarily be less complex, more reliable, or easier to manage than a network that includes equipment from several manufacturers. Foreign studies (in particular, Gartner, “ Debunking the Myth of the Single-Vendor Network ”) unequivocally show that most organizations should consider a solution that uses equipment from several vendors, as this helps significantly reduce costs without increasing (and often reducing network complexity. At Gartner, the most typical alternative to Cisco is called customer choice for HP or Juniper equipment.
')
Comparative estimates of the leading vendors of network and communication equipment on several criteria, including growth in market share, financial performance, product reliability, innovation, service and support. Brocade ranks second due to strong financial results, HP leads in increasing market share. Infonetics Research data, July 2014
But is it possible to integrate equipment from another manufacturer into a network architecture based on Cisco equipment? Should we go this way? What will be the staffing requirements for working with new network equipment, infrastructure reliability and associated risks, cost and complexity of the required additional tools for managing the network, how much does the savings really compensate for the additional work?
As the practice confirms, the inclusion of the second manufacturer’s equipment in the network infrastructure not only does not increase the operating costs, but in most cases reduces the TCO by 15–25% during the service life of the equipment. The high cost of products of well-known vendors is not at all offset by lower operating costs, as is commonly believed. “Margin for the brand” does not justify itself. Total capital and operating costs are higher in the “monovendor” network.
The mention of Cisco is not by chance - this company remains the dominant manufacturer of corporate networking and communications equipment, offering a very wide range of products. In Russia, at least 60% of telecommunications networks are built on Cisco products, and at the same time 70-80% of the turnover of an American company falls on the public sector (according to the Vedomosti newspaper). However, this vendor has rather high prices for products, their upgrades to expand the basic capabilities, as well as maintenance services throughout the product life cycle, which often leads customers to think about an alternative.
Answers of customers to the question: "Who would you include in the Top3 manufacturers of Ethernet switches?". A survey of data center switches and campus networks was conducted by Infonetics Research in North America in April 2014.
There is an opinion that the choice of one manufacturer makes it possible to agree on the best conditions and control costs. Meanwhile, depending on the manufacturers and the type of alternative equipment involved, organizations surveyed by Gartner sought to reduce capital costs by 30-50% compared to the prices offered by Cisco. Of course, in response to market demands, Cisco may offer significant discounts for individual customers and projects. The company produces new products with a competitive price, adjusts maintenance programs, but the cost of the latter still remains high. So, according to Gartner, when choosing alternative vendors on it, you can save more than 40%.
When choosing equipment, there are legitimate concerns: there may be functional incompatibility between solutions from different vendors and shifting the blame from competing manufacturers to each other in case of problems in the network infrastructure, as well as operational difficulties associated with managing a heterogeneous environment.
How easy is it to make products from two different manufacturers work reliably on the same network? As polls show, in practice, interoperability is quite high. In order to avoid problems, it is recommended to follow the "best practices":
It is necessary to clearly distinguish between different levels in the network, minimize the interaction points of different products, for example, use products from one manufacturer for switching between working groups, another for the network core, or separate them geographically.
Often, vendors are ready to assist in the implementation phase of their equipment, especially in the case of complex and / or demanding tasks, such as equipping data centers. Thorough testing of new technologies and a pilot project will minimize the likelihood of interoperability problems, help develop a clear and understandable procedure for troubleshooting and troubleshooting.
Interestingly, more recently, in addition to traditional HP network devices, Dell and Juniper Networks offer open architecture switches to customers using a standard hardware platform (white-box or brite-box) running a standard operating system. If proprietary software platforms were previously used in switches, now customers can purchase equipment from one manufacturer and software from another. The release of such solutions will help vendors increase competition with Cisco Systems.
Reducing network complexity when adding equipment from another vendor seems illogical, however, such a transition contributes to standardization of network architecture and product compatibility, consistency of configurations and reduction in the number of OS versions. A similar result is obtained by updating the network infrastructure, but in the case of a multi-vendor environment, the effect is longer. With each update of the network, you need to set a goal - to reduce the complexity and to ensure that the benefits obtained remain in the future.
Preference is given to vendors who help optimize the scale of the network and are ready to meet the special requirements of customers. Optimization of the network infrastructure, reduction of its complexity, following the recommended practices of design and management will reduce operating costs. It is important that the software and management tools are compatible with the equipment used.
Adding new equipment will require additional management tools. As a rule, management software provides a full range of capabilities for devices of a specific vendor. Often, vendors supply their control systems for free, and include in the cost of the contract the training of specialists to work with them. In addition, there are many manufacturer-independent network management tools. They facilitate the transition to alternative equipment or the addition of new technologies, help reduce unplanned downtime and simplify network operation.
Some vendors offer their own management systems (for example, HP IMC - Intelligent Management Center), with support for both their own network devices and devices manufactured by other vendors. Such control systems simplify and cheapen the implementation and operation of multivendor solutions.
The potential problem with frames is often referred to as a significant obstacle to the choice of an alternative vendor. However, retraining from Cisco products to specialization in other manufacturers is a relatively simple task, since most of the knowledge is at the very core of networking technologies. You can use the training offered by many manufacturers, which takes into account the existing certification and focuses on the points that distinguish their decision. Often, training can be done online.
Practice shows that adding a new manufacturer’s equipment to a network does not at all entail an increase in the number of specialists or wages. This dispels the myth that, over the life of a network, savings in operating expenses compensate for the increased costs of purchasing equipment. For example, one of the customers managed to outsource the network. When transferring the customer's network infrastructure from Cisco equipment to the equipment, the HP outsourcer did this without much difficulty and within the framework of the existing contract.
The conclusion is simple: when choosing network equipment, you need to pay attention to alternative suppliers. First and foremost, those who prioritize support for open industrial standards (both traditional and the most promising and modern) and, ultimately, simplify the architecture and management of networks, achieving this through large-scale application of modern virtualization technologies and convergence. , integration of physical and virtual network environments, as well as maximum automation of the processes of deployment, operation and optimization of corporate data networks. This will provide the optimal network solution for a reasonable price.
Our previous publications:
» Available HP ProLiant server models (10 and 100 series)
» Convergence based on HP Networking. Part 1
» HP ProLiant ML350 Gen9 - server with insane extensibility
Thanks for attention.
Which approach is better to choose when building a data network: use equipment from the same manufacturer or solutions from different vendors? It seems obvious that the first option will help avoid incompatibility problems, and the cost of operating a homogeneous network infrastructure should be less. The idea of ​​unifying the network, building it on the equipment of a single manufacturer, is being promoted by leading vendors as a way to simplify operation, improve reliability and reduce the total cost of ownership of network infrastructure ( TCO ). Yes, and Russian system integrators often state that the use of products from one vendor makes it possible to achieve the most effective, harmonious interaction of all system components, which is especially important for large-scale integration projects, where the emphasis is on performance and fault tolerance.
In most cases, there is no basis for this argument in terms of financial and operational benefits, functionality or reliability. A network built on the equipment of a single vendor (for example, Cisco) will not necessarily be less complex, more reliable, or easier to manage than a network that includes equipment from several manufacturers. Foreign studies (in particular, Gartner, “ Debunking the Myth of the Single-Vendor Network ”) unequivocally show that most organizations should consider a solution that uses equipment from several vendors, as this helps significantly reduce costs without increasing (and often reducing network complexity. At Gartner, the most typical alternative to Cisco is called customer choice for HP or Juniper equipment.
')
Comparative estimates of the leading vendors of network and communication equipment on several criteria, including growth in market share, financial performance, product reliability, innovation, service and support. Brocade ranks second due to strong financial results, HP leads in increasing market share. Infonetics Research data, July 2014
But is it possible to integrate equipment from another manufacturer into a network architecture based on Cisco equipment? Should we go this way? What will be the staffing requirements for working with new network equipment, infrastructure reliability and associated risks, cost and complexity of the required additional tools for managing the network, how much does the savings really compensate for the additional work?
Cost reduction
As the practice confirms, the inclusion of the second manufacturer’s equipment in the network infrastructure not only does not increase the operating costs, but in most cases reduces the TCO by 15–25% during the service life of the equipment. The high cost of products of well-known vendors is not at all offset by lower operating costs, as is commonly believed. “Margin for the brand” does not justify itself. Total capital and operating costs are higher in the “monovendor” network.
The mention of Cisco is not by chance - this company remains the dominant manufacturer of corporate networking and communications equipment, offering a very wide range of products. In Russia, at least 60% of telecommunications networks are built on Cisco products, and at the same time 70-80% of the turnover of an American company falls on the public sector (according to the Vedomosti newspaper). However, this vendor has rather high prices for products, their upgrades to expand the basic capabilities, as well as maintenance services throughout the product life cycle, which often leads customers to think about an alternative.
Answers of customers to the question: "Who would you include in the Top3 manufacturers of Ethernet switches?". A survey of data center switches and campus networks was conducted by Infonetics Research in North America in April 2014.
There is an opinion that the choice of one manufacturer makes it possible to agree on the best conditions and control costs. Meanwhile, depending on the manufacturers and the type of alternative equipment involved, organizations surveyed by Gartner sought to reduce capital costs by 30-50% compared to the prices offered by Cisco. Of course, in response to market demands, Cisco may offer significant discounts for individual customers and projects. The company produces new products with a competitive price, adjusts maintenance programs, but the cost of the latter still remains high. So, according to Gartner, when choosing alternative vendors on it, you can save more than 40%.
Hardware compatibility
When choosing equipment, there are legitimate concerns: there may be functional incompatibility between solutions from different vendors and shifting the blame from competing manufacturers to each other in case of problems in the network infrastructure, as well as operational difficulties associated with managing a heterogeneous environment.
How easy is it to make products from two different manufacturers work reliably on the same network? As polls show, in practice, interoperability is quite high. In order to avoid problems, it is recommended to follow the "best practices":
- when developing a network architecture, it is recommended to adhere to “reference architectures” and the concept of typical “building blocks” to define clear boundaries of individual technical solutions and the tasks they perform;
- minimize areas of interaction of products from different vendors;
- primarily implement network services based on standard solutions and clearly distinguish them by the appropriate levels of the enterprise network architecture;
- use standards as widely as possible; the use of non-standard or “standard” protocols (draft) in the network should be excluded or minimized.
It is necessary to clearly distinguish between different levels in the network, minimize the interaction points of different products, for example, use products from one manufacturer for switching between working groups, another for the network core, or separate them geographically.
Often, vendors are ready to assist in the implementation phase of their equipment, especially in the case of complex and / or demanding tasks, such as equipping data centers. Thorough testing of new technologies and a pilot project will minimize the likelihood of interoperability problems, help develop a clear and understandable procedure for troubleshooting and troubleshooting.
Interestingly, more recently, in addition to traditional HP network devices, Dell and Juniper Networks offer open architecture switches to customers using a standard hardware platform (white-box or brite-box) running a standard operating system. If proprietary software platforms were previously used in switches, now customers can purchase equipment from one manufacturer and software from another. The release of such solutions will help vendors increase competition with Cisco Systems.
Infrastructure complexity and network management
Reducing network complexity when adding equipment from another vendor seems illogical, however, such a transition contributes to standardization of network architecture and product compatibility, consistency of configurations and reduction in the number of OS versions. A similar result is obtained by updating the network infrastructure, but in the case of a multi-vendor environment, the effect is longer. With each update of the network, you need to set a goal - to reduce the complexity and to ensure that the benefits obtained remain in the future.
Preference is given to vendors who help optimize the scale of the network and are ready to meet the special requirements of customers. Optimization of the network infrastructure, reduction of its complexity, following the recommended practices of design and management will reduce operating costs. It is important that the software and management tools are compatible with the equipment used.
Adding new equipment will require additional management tools. As a rule, management software provides a full range of capabilities for devices of a specific vendor. Often, vendors supply their control systems for free, and include in the cost of the contract the training of specialists to work with them. In addition, there are many manufacturer-independent network management tools. They facilitate the transition to alternative equipment or the addition of new technologies, help reduce unplanned downtime and simplify network operation.
Some vendors offer their own management systems (for example, HP IMC - Intelligent Management Center), with support for both their own network devices and devices manufactured by other vendors. Such control systems simplify and cheapen the implementation and operation of multivendor solutions.
Solve frames
The potential problem with frames is often referred to as a significant obstacle to the choice of an alternative vendor. However, retraining from Cisco products to specialization in other manufacturers is a relatively simple task, since most of the knowledge is at the very core of networking technologies. You can use the training offered by many manufacturers, which takes into account the existing certification and focuses on the points that distinguish their decision. Often, training can be done online.
Practice shows that adding a new manufacturer’s equipment to a network does not at all entail an increase in the number of specialists or wages. This dispels the myth that, over the life of a network, savings in operating expenses compensate for the increased costs of purchasing equipment. For example, one of the customers managed to outsource the network. When transferring the customer's network infrastructure from Cisco equipment to the equipment, the HP outsourcer did this without much difficulty and within the framework of the existing contract.
The conclusion is simple: when choosing network equipment, you need to pay attention to alternative suppliers. First and foremost, those who prioritize support for open industrial standards (both traditional and the most promising and modern) and, ultimately, simplify the architecture and management of networks, achieving this through large-scale application of modern virtualization technologies and convergence. , integration of physical and virtual network environments, as well as maximum automation of the processes of deployment, operation and optimization of corporate data networks. This will provide the optimal network solution for a reasonable price.
Our previous publications:
» Available HP ProLiant server models (10 and 100 series)
» Convergence based on HP Networking. Part 1
» HP ProLiant ML350 Gen9 - server with insane extensibility
Thanks for attention.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/251567/
All Articles