On this page
- Context and Problem Statement
- Decision Drivers
- Considered Options
- Decision Outcome
- Next Decision Trigger
- Positive Consequences
- Negative Consequences
- Pros and Cons of the Options
- Option 1 – Mandated NetScaler family (chosen)
- Option 2 – Alternate vendor or platform-native (e.g., F5, Avi, NGINX)
- Links and References
Context and Problem Statement
External load balancing is required for north-south traffic. Procurement constraints mandate the NetScaler vendor family, recorded in internal sourcing documentation.
Decision Drivers
- Procurement compliance.
- Early availability for rollout.
Considered Options
- Use the mandated NetScaler family.
- Alternate vendor or platform-native (e.g., F5, Avi, NGINX).
Decision Outcome
Chosen option: Use the mandated NetScaler family.
This decision is vendor-family-only; form factor and deployment model are defined in ADR-005.
Next Decision Trigger
- Decision owner: Platform Architecture with Procurement.
- Revalidate this accepted vendor constraint when procurement evidence references or approved commercial scope are renewed.
- If procurement scope changes, publish an amendment or superseding ADR and update downstream ADR dependencies before 2026-03-15.
Positive Consequences
- Fixed vendor target for planning.
Negative Consequences
- Reduced vendor flexibility.
Pros and Cons of the Options
Option 1 – Mandated NetScaler family (chosen)
- Good: Meets procurement constraints.
- Bad: Reduces flexibility.
Option 2 – Alternate vendor or platform-native (e.g., F5, Avi, NGINX)
- Good: Potentially simpler lifecycle.
- Bad: Conflicts with procurement constraints.
Links and References
- Related Sources: topic-datacenter-rollout-intent
- Related Sources: 10-topics/platform/topic-phase-1-investigation-backlog-investigation
- Procurement evidence: internal sourcing documentation that records the NetScaler family constraint (maintained outside this vault).