If you have ever watched a "quick network change" turn into a week-long incident, you already know the dirty secret of SD-WAN. SD-WAN does not fail. Implementations do.
The most expensive part is not the gear. It is the moment your network stops behaving predictably. That is when every cloud app becomes "slow", every Teams call becomes robot karaoke, and your IT team starts practicing the ancient art of staring at graphs until meaning appears.
And yes, six figures is not exaggeration. Recent industry research puts unplanned downtime at an average of about $14,056 per minute across organisations, rising to about $23,750 per minute for large enterprises. Multiply that by 10 to 15 minutes and you can hit six figures before anyone has even agreed on what the problem is. Another widely cited benchmark is hourly cost. A 2024 survey report from says hourly downtime exceeds $300,000 for 90% of firms, and 41% of enterprises put it at $1 million to over $5 million per hour.
Even worse, outages are not rare edge cases. Reporting tied to research puts the cross-industry average cost of a high business-impact outage around $1.7 million per hour, and identifies network failures as a leading cause.
So when we talk about "six-figure SD-WAN mistakes", we are talking about decisions that quietly increase the odds of performance collapse, security gaps, and painfully slow incident response. Here are the ones that show up over and over.
The most common mistake is thinking SD-WAN is just MPLS with a better marketing team.
A useful grounding point comes from, which defines an SD-WAN service as a virtual overlay network that is application-aware, policy-driven, and orchestrated. It operates over one or more underlay connectivity services and forwards traffic based on application flows and policy, adapting forwarding using real-time telemetry.
That definition matters because it exposes the trap: if you only replace the transport (MPLS to broadband) but keep the same architecture, the same traffic flows, the same segmentation model, and the same operational habits, you are not adopting SD-WAN. You are doing a link swap and hoping software will forgive you.
What this looks like in the wild:
The uncomfortable technical reality is that SD-WAN is built to centralise policy and push changes consistently at scale. Many platforms explicitly position central policy creation and rapid rollout as core value. If your deployment still relies on per-site bespoke configuration and tribal knowledge, you have paid for the orchestra and then asked them to play kazoo.
SD-WAN is at its best when links are imperfect. Which is most links, most days.
But a lot of deployments are designed for "normal", and then everyone acts surprised when "abnormal" happens. In WAN terms, abnormal means packet loss, jitter spikes, asymmetric routing, DNS oddities, ISP micro-outages, and maintenance windows that were definitely communicated via a carrier portal nobody checks.
SD-WAN platforms make path decisions using performance telemetry, typically built around latency, jitter, and loss. For example, application-aware routing in one major SD-WAN implementation tracks these characteristics for tunnels, continuously monitors the data plane using BFD packets, and applies actions based on configured SLA thresholds for jitter, latency, and packet loss. A separate industry glossary similarly describes dynamic path selection as choosing the optimal path per application flow based on link metrics including latency, jitter, and packet loss.
The failure-design mistakes that cost serious money tend to be boring:
The business impact is brutal because degraded links do not always show up as "down". They show up as slow SaaS, broken voice, and random timeouts. That is the worst kind of outage because it bleeds time, credibility, and staff focus.
Ignoring application-aware routing
If your SD-WAN is not steering based on applications, you are doing expensive load balancing.
A defining capability of SD-WAN is application-aware routing. At a practical level, that means the platform can classify traffic and apply routing and QoS behaviour per application, then move traffic to healthier paths when SLA conditions are not being met. Vendors describe this in plain terms. Identify applications, apply QoS rules, and select paths based on latency, jitter, and packet loss. Some also highlight techniques like forward error correction to improve performance over lossy links.
Where teams go wrong is assuming the default templates will match their environment:
In technical terms, the SD-WAN control plane is only as smart as the policies you feed it. SD-WAN best practice guidance often emphasises SLA-based routing built on measured loss, latency, and jitter. When that is not configured thoughtfully, the platform can still build tunnels and pass traffic, but it will not deliver the user experience you sold internally.
And "user experience not improved" is how SD-WAN projects get the dreaded label: expensive change, unclear benefit.
Bolting security on instead of building it in
Many teams treat encryption as a synonym for security. It is not.
Yes, SD-WAN commonly uses encrypted tunnels. For example, security references note that SD-WAN often relies on encrypted tunnels resembling VPNs, frequently using IPsec as the underlying mechanism. That is necessary. It is not sufficient.
There are two common six-figure security failures here.
First is segmentation negligence. Good SD-WAN architectures can provide logical separation using VPN or VRF-style constructs. One SD-WAN design guide explicitly describes VPN segmentation as routing table isolation, and explains that labels can identify the VPN a user's traffic belongs to across the WAN, preventing cross-segment traffic unless explicitly allowed. Another vendor document describes SD-WAN segmentation where VRF information is encapsulated within the IPsec tunnel to support multi-VRF tunnels.
When segmentation is skipped, everything becomes "inside". That makes lateral movement easier and incident containment harder. Translation: ransomware gets to explore.
Second is pretending network and security are independent projects. In 2026, they are increasingly fused through architectures like SASE, which explicitly unify SD-WAN with security functions
such as secure web gateway (SWG), CASB, firewall-as-a-service (FWaaS), and zero trust network access (ZTNA), typically with centralised management.
And if you are trying to align with zero trust principles, describes zero trust as eliminating implicit trust and requiring continuous verification through real-time information to determine access and responses.
The mistake is rolling out SD-WAN connectivity first, then dealing with inspection, identity, segmentation, and access policy later. Later never comes. Instead, you get a patchwork of branch firewalls, inconsistent rules, exceptions for "urgent" business needs, and a network that is fast enough to deliver threats more efficiently.
Congratulations. You have built an on-ramp for risk.
Underestimating operational complexity
SD-WAN reduces manual provisioning. It does not reduce accountability.
Large-scale SD-WAN overlay networks are complex enough that standards work exists purely to describe how to manage them. For example, a draft on SD-WAN overlay usage discusses
managing large-scale SD-WAN overlays and explicitly aims to minimise manual provisioning by distributing reachability and underlay path information via a BGP-based control plane.
That is a polite, standards-language way of saying: "This gets complicated fast, so do not wing it."
Where operational costs explode:
Zero-touch provisioning is one of the mechanisms designed to prevent that. It is commonly defined as allowing unconfigured devices to automatically load software and configuration on power-on. When organisations skip disciplined provisioning and drift control, small differences multiply across sites. That multiplies troubleshooting time. That is how a minor ISP issue becomes a week of "why only this site?" tickets.
In a world where high-impact outages can cost around $1.7 million per hour on average, time-to-detect and time-to-fix are not just technical metrics. They are financial controls.
Skipping baseline and post-deployment measurement
If you cannot prove improvement, the business will assume you created chaos on purpose.
SD-WAN is inherently telemetry-driven. MEF explicitly describes modifying forwarding based on real-time telemetry from underlying network components. Specific implementations talk about continuously monitoring tunnels and measuring loss, latency, and jitter.
Yet many deployments still skip the basics:
Without that, troubleshooting becomes philosophical. Everyone argues based on feelings. Users say "it is worse". IT says "the dashboard says it is better". Finance says "why did we spend this again?". That is how SD-WAN becomes politically toxic.
Given that average downtime costs can exceed $14,000 per minute, "we did not measure" is not just a process miss. It is a direct risk to operating costs.
Migration mistakes that hurt twice
Most six-figure SD-WAN bills are not the project cost. They are the recovery cost.
Common migration failures:
If you are using advanced overlay control-plane approaches, the IETF draft highlights the goal of distributing reachability and underlay path details to reduce manual provisioning. The migration lesson is simple: treat routing and underlay selection as first-class design work, not an afterthought. SD-WAN can simplify operations, but only after you survive the transition with your sanity intact.
A practical anti-six-figure checklist
If you want a quick gut-check before your SD-WAN project becomes an expensive learning experience, use this list.
You are at high risk of a "six-figure mistake" if:
SD-WAN is absolutely worth doing. It is one of the few WAN shifts that can improve resilience, application performance, and operational control at the same time. But only if you treat it as an architecture and an operating model, not a product purchase.
If you want SD-WAN to save money, the fastest path is ironically the least "cheap" approach: design for failure, engineer policies around real application needs, bake security and segmentation in early, and measure outcomes like you intend to be held accountable. Because you will be. And your budget will remember.
Ready to safeguard your business? Inlight IT can Help
Book a consultation with our engineers below or explore our SD-WAN, Managed IT Services, HCI, Connectivity, and Security solutions
.png){kind=small}
