Why a Good Enough Network Isn’t

July 12, 2011 - 3 Comments

Some vendors and analysts contend that the network just connects boxes and all you need is a tactical infrastructure, capable of addressing current requirements. But with all the challenges today around security, plus mounting evidence that the winners in today’s market are those that are differentiating themselves with innovative customer experiences, I can’t help but ask, “why?” The tactical, ‘good-enough’ network is not only shortsighted; it’s potentially harmful. A disrupter? Yes, but not the desirable kind.

Building a forward-looking network that can evolve through today’s business challenges into the future is not pie in the sky. In fact, it’s a smart business decision that can ultimately save lots of IT dollars while beefing up your capabilities and security. More importantly, it’s key to creating a platform that doesn’t give out on or frustrate your end users—employees, customers, and partners.

At Cisco Live, I stopped for a quick chat about the next generation network.  Listen in, below:

To learn more about the Cisco next generation network, go to cisco.com/go/borderless. In the meantime, though, please share your thoughts. What stands in your way when it comes to building a smart, strategic network?

In an effort to keep conversations fresh, Cisco Blogs closes comments after 60 days. Please visit the Cisco Blogs hub page for the latest content.


  1. Nice observations Marie, non forward looking industries eventually learn from their mistakes. Staying ahead of the competition requires being innovative.

  2. Thanks for your comment, Sean. Cisco’s investment in custom silicon/ASICs extends the longevity of our products to fit the type of active IT lifecycle you describe. For instance, a four-year-old (or ten-year-old) Catalyst 6500 can be ‘refreshed’ to gain all the new capabilities without a forklift upgrade.

  3. A network comprised of high quality components will net a lower OPex and will more than justify the initial expenditure. This I completely agree with, but how does this fit into an active IT lifecycle where constant component turn around is the norm? In a two to four year cycle is there truly a valid return on investment of a substantially more expensive solution?