nanog mailing list archives
RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:10:16 -0800
--- brandon.kim () brandontek com wrote: From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim () brandontek com> 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 ------------------------------------ A bit of a late response, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprotocol_Label_Switching#History scott
Current thread:
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?, (continued)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Miquel van Smoorenburg (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jethro R Binks (Jan 11)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 11)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 11)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Seth Mattinen (Jan 11)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Justin M. Streiner (Jan 11)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Ron Broersma (Jan 11)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Charles N Wyble (Jan 10)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chuck Anderson (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Herro91 (Jan 13)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Brandon Kim (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Tony Varriale (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Tony Varriale (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Chris Adams (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Greg Whynott (Jan 13)
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Jack Bates (Jan 13)