I'm trying to make an informed decision whether moving to a multi-vendor best-of-breed makes sense for my organization. This is obviously a complex question, so I am hoping to tap some (figurative) "grey hair" advise from real-world experiences for the general areas I should focus on in making/justifying a decision. What, if anything, makes a multi-vendor (wide-area) network successful and worth the risks over the "safe" single-vendor network nobody gets fired for buying (you can probably guess what vendor Powers my network now). What are the (un)quantifiable metrics/ROI/arguments you've used to justify being single-vendor or best-of-breed? The single-vendor argument seems to primarily focus on customer support (no finger-pointing, no confusion who to call) and single skill-set (leverage training, hire rote technicians) advantages. The multi-vendor faction seems to focus on best features/performance, best price, and keeping vendors honest. What are the real factors and what is FUD for someone who has been on both sides? Personal experience, pointers to case studies, (vendor) white papers, etc on both sides of the argument are appreciated. Thanks. Pete.