Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

This is a two-edged sword.

Cisco tends to do their own thing, then, try to push their way of doing it onto the standards
bodies when the competition starts trying to catch up.

Other vendors tend to bring ideas that will require interoperability to the standards bodies
and work on getting the standard at least partially defined before spending effort on
implementation.

There are advantages and drawbacks to both approaches.

Owen

On Jan 10, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:

> To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out with a way to do things first which 
> then become a standard that
> they have to follow.
>
> ISL/DOT1Q
> HSRP/VRRP
> etherchannel/LACP
>
> Just some examples..... I'm not aware of too many other vendors that create their own protocol, in which they then 
> become a standard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:46:53 -0800
> > From: sethm () rollernet us
> > To: nanog () nanog org
> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> >
> > On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote:
> > > On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
> > > > 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 ).
> > >
> > > Well, technically, the HP reference tells you how to convert your Cisco
> > > default PVST over to MST to match the HP preference.
> > >
> > > The handful of HP switches versus the stacks and stacks of production
> > > Cisco requiring conversion to suit them was "intimidating" to say the
> > > least :-)
> >
> >
> > To be fair, one is Cisco proprietary while the other is IEEE 802.1Q.
> >
> > ~Seth
>