*nods* Differences between long term money and opportunistic money, which I admit is starting to trend away from NANOG's purpose, but still kinda related as it pertains to integration of networks.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Delong.com" <o...@delong.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "Matthew Petach" <mpet...@netflight.com>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:22:26 PM Subject: Re: Zayo woes You’ve got the blame right, but the fact that the cost savings don’t materialize quickly seems to get forgiven more easily than a sudden (albeit one-time, temporary) increase in costs to accelerate that transition. Result: In general, no additional money, limp along and realize the cost savings over time. Certainly not idea from a technical perspective. Probably not ideal from a bottom line perspective over the long haul. Almost certainly ends up looking better on the first couple of 10Qs and by the 3rd 10Q, everyone is paying attention to something else. Owen On Sep 19, 2023, at 07:44, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: I blame not the network nerds, but the management that put them in that position. The problem with C is that unless the networks *ARE* integrated quickly, the synergies won't happen. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Petach" <mpet...@netflight.com> To: "Bill Murphy" <william.mur...@uth.tmc.edu> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>, "Randy Carpenter" <rcar...@network1.net>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:41:35 AM Subject: Re: Zayo woes On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:19AM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> [...] I've never understood companies that acquire and don't completely integrate as quickly as they can. Ah, spoken with the voice of someone who's never been in the position of: a) acquiring a company not-much-smaller-than-you that b) runs on completely different hardware and software and c) your executives have promised there will be cost savings after the merger due to "synergies" between the two companies. ^_^; Let's say you're an all J shop; your scripts, your tooling, everything expects to be talking to J devices. Your executives buy a company that has almost the same size network--but it's all C devices running classic IOS. You can go to your executives and tell them "hey, to integrate quickly with our network and tooling, we need to swap out all their C gear for J gear; it's gonna cost an extra $50M" The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and denying the request for money to convert the acquired network to J. You can go to your network and say "hey, we need to revamp our tooling and systems to understand how to speak to C and J devices equally, in spite of wildly different syntaxes for route-maps and the like-it's going to take 4 more developer headcount to rewrite all the systems." The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and deny the request for developer headcount to rewrite your software systems. The general result of acquisitions of similar-sized companies is that the infrastructure runs in parallel, slowly getting converted over and unified as gear needs to be replaced, or sites are phased out--because any other course of action costs more money than the executives had promised the shareholders, the board, or the VCs, depending on what stage your company is at. Swift integrations cost money, and most acquisitions promise cost savings instead of warning of increased costs due to integration. That's why most companies don't integrate quickly. :( Matt </blockquote>
