 network or its operation in some way. Examples might include removing equipment or replacing a complex IP scheme with one that's easier to understand or maintain. Perhaps the change will cause all of the routers to have the same revision of code. Anything that makes the operation or troubleshooting of the network less com- plex saves time and money. Simple is good. If you can easily explain how a change will enhance the simplicity of the network, chances are the change is a valid one. Standardize Standardization can also make networks more cost-effective and easier to maintain. If you have 200 routers and they're all the same model, you will know what to expect from each router when you connect to it. While that may not be realistic, having a standard device for every function and standard ways to deploy services is realistic. You can make all of your edge routers, the core switches in every building, and SO on, the same type. If you deploy NTP, it should be deployed the same way everywhere. Standardization allows for spares to be more readily available, and it allows for devices to be swapped in from less critical places in an emergency. Stabilize How to enhance stability is not always obvious. Perhaps the revision of IOS code that has been standardized on all the VoIP gateways has been reported to have an issue that might affect your environment. That code should no longer be considered stable and should be updated. Likewise, if there is a piece of hardware that has caused problems in the past, it should be replaced. These sorts of changes are valid and will increase the network's stability. Maxim #3 There are a finite number of reasons why a company will fund changes to an existing network. The reasons are surprisingly simple and fairly obvious: Lower costs Increase performance or capacity Maxim #3 Increase reliability Unless you can prove that your idea will meet one of these goals, chances are you will be denied the funds you need. GAD's Maxim #3: Companies only spend money on IT projects that lower costs, 