Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

:: and minimal time zones (still 5 hours :: between New York and Hawaii though). Apologies, I can't resist. :) Sometimes it's 6 hours and some times it's 5 between Hawaii and the East Coast. Hawaii is *always* -10 GMT. We don't do daylight savings time. scott

Re: microducts

I doubt any such data exists, but I wonder how many fiber miles and customers WISPs turned up in the past year as compared to some high-profile goalpost... Google Fiber or Verizon FiOS or AT Gigawhatever or... Obviously not 1:1, but WISPs as a whole compared to the titans. - Mike

Re: microducts

> On Dec 29, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: > > Hi > > I am planing a new FTTH outside plant deployment. We are going to use > microducts but which system is the best? I see many resources describing the > options available but few if any will take a

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

I'm not a fan of vendor lock-in, and have been bitten by it. I eschew vendor specific solutions unless it is essential to delivering a particular result. Keeping multiple players at the table, and making those players aware that you have other options that you can and do take advantage of seems

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

G'day Leo, On 28 December 2016 at 07:10, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > In a message written on Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Chris Grundemann wrote: > > If you have a case study, lesson learned, data point, or even just a strong > > opinion; I'd love to hear it! > > I think

microducts

Hi I am planing a new FTTH outside plant deployment. We are going to use microducts but which system is the best? I see many resources describing the options available but few if any will take a stance on which one to choose. Some of the choices are: 1) Ducts with larger fixed tubes for

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

When doing business in 100 countries, what if vendor A has support in 80 of those countries, and vendor B has good presence in the last 20 ? What if you require a vendor that has presence in all countries and this limits your RFPs to a single vendor ? Does your company run semi autonomous

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

On 12/29/16 10:22 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:44:45 -0800, Leo Bicknell said: > >> But I think the question others are trying to ask is a different >> hyptothetical. Say there are two vendors, of of which makes perfectly >> good edge routers and core routers.

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

In a message written on Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 01:22:28PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@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: *

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:44:45 -0800, Leo Bicknell said: > But I think the question others are trying to ask is a different > hyptothetical. Say there are two vendors, of of which makes perfectly > good edge routers and core routers. What are the pros to buying all > of the edge from one, and all

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

In a message written on Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 01:39:59PM -0500, Chris Grundemann wrote: > An alternative multi-vendor approach is to use 1 vendor per stack layer, > but alternate layer to layer. That is; Vendor A edge router, Vendor B > firewall, Vendor A/C switches, Vendor D anti-SPAM software,

Multi-vendor strategies [was: Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > I apparently wasn't very clear. In the layered approach to multiple > > vendors, you would (obviously) choose your layer definitions to avoid > > such delicate interdependence. > > can you describe in useful detail your

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

> I apparently wasn't very clear. In the layered approach to multiple > vendors, you would (obviously) choose your layer definitions to avoid > such delicate interdependence. can you describe in useful detail your operational experience doing this? randy

Re: Benefits (and Detriments) of Standardizing Network Equipment in a Global Organization

I apparently wasn't very clear. In the layered approach to multiple vendors, you would (obviously) choose your layer definitions to avoid such delicate interdependence. Regardless of my failure to fully explain, I'm curious as to how mixing vendors at the same layer is seen to be less problematic