The Case for a Vendor-Neutral Networkby Kevin Dooley, author of Designing Large-Scale LANs
As a consultant, I frequently see networks that are built exclusively using equipment from one vendor. There are some obvious advantages to this approach, but I believe that the advantages of a vendor-neutral network design philosophy are greater still. In many ways the situation is similar to what happened in the mainframe world before networks and client-server applications became common. Many companies bought their computing equipment exclusively from one manufacturer and wound up paying far more money for it as a result. They also found that the proprietary technology prevented them from buying less expensive and more powerful equipment from other vendors unless they abandoned their entire initial investment.
This article looks at the benefits and trade-offs that result from applying a best-of-breed philosophy to selecting network equipment. There is still room for an exclusive relationship with one vendor, but I believe that it is important to fully understand the consequences of running a single-vendor network. Looking at the bigger picture, a single-vendor network becomes more difficult to justify, and the vendor-neutral network design philosophy emerges as the better choice in most cases.
There are four main benefits to designing a network to be independent of any single equipment vendor. The relative importance of these benefits will change depending on your priorities and which vendors you choose, so the order is arbitrary. The benefits are:
- Lower costs
- Getting the best possible technology
- Greater flexibility for future technology improvements
- Less exposure to vendor instability
The first two points are tied together. Many types of equipment are available from several different vendors. For example, most network hardware vendors have routers and switches with a variety of different physical port configurations. If these devices are going to be used in a highly specialized way that requires either software or hardware features that are only available from one manufacturer, then the choice of vendor is easy. But most of the time these devices are used in much simpler ways. The selection process can be widened to include comparable devices from several different vendors.
By opening up the selection process in this way, you gain the two most important benefits of a competitive market. You force the vendors to compete with one another by either having the best prices or the best technology, or some combination. One device is going to have the best throughput, another the best filtering, and still another will have the lowest price. You can then choose the one that best meets your needs. Most organizations do this sort of analysis at some point. But I frequently talk to clients who mistakenly make this decision once and for all. Not only do they decide that a particular vendor's equipment is the most appropriate, but they decide that this vendor's entire equipment line is the best across the board.
The key to benefiting from the market competition in networking equipment is to select the best of breed for each of the different categories of device. Access devices have vastly different requirements from core switches, so there is no reason to suppose that the vendor with the best of one has the best of the other.
Bear in mind that by "best" I mean the one that most closely meets your specific requirements for that device. A device that has sophisticated features that you don't need is not better than another device that has only those features that you do need. In another network, however, the more sophisticated device may be the only option.
The third benefit is greater flexibility. New and improved technology is continuously introduced to the market. Sometimes this new technology will ideally match your requirements. When this happens, you will want to be able to install the new equipment that implements this technology. The different network hardware vendors actively compete to be the first to devise and implement technological improvements. So tying your network to a single vendor frequently means that your chosen hardware vendor will not be the first to implement some important new feature. Perhaps they will catch up; but if you need the feature now, you are better off if you can buy at least this one device from the competing vendor.
A vendor-neutral design philosophy allows you to change vendors to embrace new technology for two reasons. First, and most obvious, if you are tied to a single vendor, you are not able to try new technology from other vendors at all. But, that is just a matter of mind-set. The real issue is the second reason: a vendor-neutral design philosophy forces you to use open, non-proprietary protocols. Without such a design philosophy, it is often impossible to introduce equipment from a new vendor.
What are your experiences with single-vendor versus vendor-neutral networks?
In the current economic climate, every network professional should be acutely aware of the possibility of the financial problems of their favorite hardware vendors. Although I'm not predicting anybody's imminent demise, it is important to remember that sometimes companies get into trouble and have to discontinue product lines to cut costs and remain competitive. Sometimes they must refocus on their core products, possibly spinning off or selling off whole divisions. This can leave a network engineer with a serious problem that can only be addressed by implementing equipment from other vendors.
If the network design employs a fundamental philosophy of using the best equipment for a particular function regardless of vendor, then the change is greatly simplified. There will be no proprietary protocols to complicate the removal of unsupported equipment. And, more importantly, it will be straightforward to swap out one piece of equipment at a time. Just because equipment is no long supported doesn't mean that you have to immediately remove it. But it does mean that you should have a migration plan. A migration plan that involves simply swapping one box at a time is clearly much easier than one that requires a major redesign.
Naturally, there is a cost to be paid for going with a vendor-neutral network. There are three main benefits to choosing one vendor and sticking with it. It is important to be aware of these benefits so that you properly balance them against the benefits of a vendor-neutral design philosophy. The benefits are:
- Proprietary protocols often have important advantages
- Some vendors give competitive pricing benefits to large loyal customers
- Using a common platform often simplifies network management
Over the years many vendors have introduced proprietary protocols and proprietary extensions to standard protocols. This means that you cannot swap individual pieces of equipment taking part in these protocols with equipment from competing vendors without also changing protocols. And, unfortunately, changing protocols often requires topology changes as well.
For example, if two Ethernet switches communicate using a proprietary trunk protocol, then it is not possible to change the access level switch. If a competing vendor were to introduce an extremely inexpensive high-speed switch that will allow Gigabit Ethernet to every desktop, then you might want to take advantage of this. However, the proprietary trunk protocol makes the change cumbersome at best. If the open standard 802.1q VLAN trunk protocol were used instead, then it would be much easier to make this swap.
So why do proprietary protocols exist? The case of trunk protocols makes a good example. The 802.1q standard was relatively late in developing, so vendors were forced to develop their own proprietary standards as a stopgap measure until an open standard was available. The proprietary standards continue to exist because they include features such as link multiplexing that are not available in the open standard.
It is important to fully understand the consequences of running a single-vendor network.
In other cases, such as Cisco's Enhanced Interior Gateway Protocol (EIGRP), proprietary protocols are useful because they are reliable and easy to implement. EIGRP is also useful because it supports the dynamic routing of not just IP, but also IPX and Appletalk. This has the effect of greatly simplifying a network design, since the routing infrastructure for all of these protocols can easily be built in parallel. If unrelated protocols are used for each of these protocols, on the other hand, it can be difficult to make a network topology that works for all of them equally well. In some cases it is necessary to resort to tunnels to carry foreign protocol traffic between islands of native support. Using EIGRP largely solves this problem, but it means that all of your routers must be Cisco.
Some vendors like to give special pricing to their biggest customers. This usually comes with an assurance of exclusivity. The customer promises not to buy anything from a competitor unless the vendor doesn't have a product in the category. So, for example, a company might sign a "partnership" contract with a particular vendor compelling them to buy all of their routers and switches from the company. But if that vendor doesn't make firewalls, then it would be acceptable to use equipment from a competitor. This sort of agreement also often specifies a minimum dollar amount that the customer will order per year or per quarter. In exchange for this, the customer receives a significant discount, often as much as 40 percent.
There are a few important things to bear in mind with this sort of agreement. First, it is often possible to get a similar discount by simply shopping around for competitive equipment. Second, if you do shop around, you can often come back to the first vendor and arrange for a discount in exchange for not going to a competitor. You will get the best discounts by buying in volume anyway. If you are going to buy several million dollars worth of equipment, just about any vendor will be excited enough by the sale to offer incentives. This is particularly true if they know that you are perfectly willing to go to a competitor if the price is not good enough. I have seen vendors jump through hoops to get a large customer to switch to them, even to the extent of taking a loss just to make the sale and secure the customer. This is a free market; make it work for you.
Pages: 1, 2