nanog mailing list archives
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott () oicr on ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500
for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling your sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the tech on the phone. Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the clout to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor. his pay comes from you, you pay him, he works for 2. -g On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim <brandon.kim () brandontek com> wrote:to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that, I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?"I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying another vendor they raise an eyebrow.From: Greg.Whynott () oicr on ca To: brandon.kim () brandontek com CC: khomyakov.andrey () gmail com; nanog () nanog org Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoperability.pdf ). At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to help us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to do this" … to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear".. HP's example should be the yard stick in the field. -g On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:To your point Andrey, It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to fingerpoint as well. I remember reading for my CCNP oneof the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reasonyou pointed out, get all Cisco!How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they arebeing sincere(sarcasm).Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy theirstuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really shouldtry to support your product as best you can if it is connected toanother vendor.I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at leasttried their hardest to support you.....From: khomyakov.andrey () gmail com Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? To: nanog () nanog org There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just saythatsince the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for bothsides.I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s andAvayaphones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundlingbetweenjuniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall themanymore.Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on thenetwork, therest should be cisco too, unless there is a very goodtechnical/financialreason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help inthosecases. Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At leastin myexperience. My $0.02 Andrey On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott<Greg.Whynott () oicr on ca>wrote:I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internalL2/L3.Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling. from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and triedto useanother vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why itwas a badchoice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices.Thenfor the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not tosay Ciscogear has been without its issues, but they are much fewer andhandledbetter when stuff hits the fan. the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPCrequirementswhich is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it hasalwaysbeen Cisco for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposedtotrying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and theyhave beenpleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of theothervendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't bebetatesting their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade ourfirmwareon our core equipment several times in one year…). Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for thesmart netcontracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 withunrestricted licenseand contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending onoptions,with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more… -g-- Andrey Khomyakov [khomyakov.andrey () gmail com]-- This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.-- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-- This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.
Current thread:
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?, (continued)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Randy Carpenter (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Andrey Khomyakov (Jan 10)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? George Bonser (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chris Adams (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 10)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 10)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Thomas Donnelly (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Randy Carpenter (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jeff Kell (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Seth Mattinen (Jan 10)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Seth Mattinen (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Owen DeLong (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? lorddoskias (Jan 10)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Owen DeLong (Jan 10)