nanog mailing list archives
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
From: Chuck Anderson <cra () WPI EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:18:00 -0500
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:10:16PM -0800, Scott Weeks 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
Yes, and then they keep their proprietary implementation instead of phasing it out, and no one migrates to the standard one which leads to vendor lockin.
Current thread:
- Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?, (continued)
- 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)
- RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? Michael Ruiz (Jan 13)