Category Archives: Networking

The Art of Media-tion: Bridging the Gap Between “Secure” and “Now”

Posted on by

The Art of Media-tion: Bridging the Gap Between “Secure” and “Now”

In the high-stakes world of modern infrastructure, two distinct tribes are forced to share the same territory.

On one side, the Network Team. They are the gatekeepers. Their priorities are clear: Security, Stability, and Standardization. They live by the firewall and die by the protocol.

On the other side, the Media Team. They are the sprinters. Their priorities are equally clear: Perfection, Latency (or lack thereof), and Speed. They don’t care about the firewall; they care that the video feed is stuttering and the audio is clean.

These two groups rarely see eye to eye. The Media team thinks the Network team is the “Department of No.” The Network team thinks the Media team is a walking security vulnerability.

The Conflict

The disconnect is fundamental.

  • Network wants to inspect every packet to ensure safety.

  • Media needs those packets to fly through unhindered to ensure quality.

When these priorities clash, projects stall. The creative vision gets strangled by security policies, or conversely, the network gets flooded by unruly, high-bandwidth traffic that wasn’t accounted for.

The Solution: Media-tion

This is where the concept of Media-tion becomes essential.

Media-tion /mē-dē-ā-shən/ noun

The specialized diplomatic and technical process of aligning high-bandwidth media requirements with strict network security protocols.

Media-tion is more than just compromise; it is translation. It requires a partner who understands that “Jumbo Frames” aren’t a threat, NTP is not as good as PTP, and that “Multicast” isn’t a dirty word, it’s an efficiency tool.

The Role of the Media-tor: Stear

Successful Media-tion requires a guide who can hold the hands of both parties. This is where Stear steps in.

Stear acts as the ultimate Media-tor. They don’t just install technology; they translate intent.

  • They interpret the Media team’s “I need it NOW perfectly” into a language the Network team respects: QoS policies, VLAN segmentation, and bandwidth reservation.

  • They take the Network team’s “Zero Trust” mandates and architect a solution that secures the pipe without clogging it.

The Result

Through Media-tion, the impossible happens. The hostility evaporates. The Network team sleeps soundly knowing the enterprise is safe. The Media team pushes play, and the content flows flawlessly.

It turns out, you don’t have to choose between Security and Speed. You just need the right Media-tion to get them to shake hands.

Why “Red” and “Blue” Are Misleading in Network Architecture

Posted on by

In network design, naming conventions matter. They shape how engineers think about systems, how teams communicate, and how failures are diagnosed. Among the more popular—but problematic—naming schemes are “red” and “blue” architectures. While these color-coded labels may seem harmless or even intuitive, they often obscure the true nature of system behavior, especially in environments where redundancy is partial and control mechanisms are not fully mirrored.

“When you centralize the wrong thing, you concentrate the blast… Resiliency you don’t practice – is resiliency you don’t have” – David Plumber

The Illusion of Symmetry

The use of “red” and “blue” implies a kind of symmetrical duality—two systems operating in parallel, equally capable, equally active. This might be true in some high-availability setups, but in many real-world architectures, one side is clearly dominant. Whether due to bandwidth, control logic, or failover behavior, the systems are not truly equal. Calling them “red” and “blue” can mislead engineers into assuming a level of redundancy or balance that simply doesn’t exist.

Why “Main” and “Failover” Are Better

A more accurate and practical naming convention is “main” and “failover.” These terms reflect the intentional asymmetry in most network designs:

  • Main: The primary path or controller, responsible for normal operations.
  • Failover: A backup that activates only when the main system fails or becomes unreachable.

This terminology makes it clear that the system is not fully redundant—there is a preferred path, and a contingency path. It also helps clarify operational expectations, especially during troubleshooting or disaster recovery.

The Problem with “Primary” and “Secondary”

While “primary” and “secondary” are common alternatives, they carry their own baggage. These terms often imply that both systems are active and cooperating, which again may not reflect reality. In many architectures, the secondary system is passive, waiting to take over only in specific failure scenarios. Using “secondary” can lead to confusion about whether it’s actively participating in control or data flow.

Naming Should Reflect Behavior

Ultimately, naming conventions should reflect actual system behavior, not just abstract design goals. If one path is dominant and the other is a backup, call them main and failover. If both are active and load-balanced, then perhaps red/blue or A/B makes sense—but only with clear documentation.

Misleading names can lead to misconfigured systems, delayed recovery, and poor communication between teams. Precision in naming is not just pedantic—it’s operationally critical.

Alternative Terminology for Primary / Secondary Roles

  • Anchor / Satellite
  • Driver / Follower
  • Coordinator / Participant
  • Source / Relay
  • Lead / Support
  • Commander / Proxy
  • Origin / Echo
  • Core / Edge
  • Root / Branch
  • Beacon / Listener
  • Pilot / Wingman
  • Active / Passive
  • Initiator / Responder
  • Principal / Auxiliary
  • Mainline / Standby