[134711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saxon Jones)
Mon Jan 10 10:45:05 2011
In-Reply-To: <BLU158-w62DD4D2B47BAF044206783DC0E0@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:43:10 -0700
From: Saxon Jones <saxon.jones@gmail.com>
To: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In my experience it all comes down to Cisco-certified people being
easy to find, and managers not wanting to spend all their time in the
hiring process. So yes, I've generally seen Cisco as the de-facto
choice, but it's rarely been a technical argument that swings the
balance. I'm generally playing in the Enterprise space now, though.
-saxon
On 10 January 2011 08:31, Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com> wrote:
>
> Hello gents:
>
> I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
>
> Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based?
>
> Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the "de facto" vendor of choice? I'm not looking for so much "fanboy" responses, but more of a real world
> experience of what you guys use that actually work and does the job.....
>
> No technical questions here, just general feedback. I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they continually show that Cisco equipment
> is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find that so hard to believe.....
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brandon
>
>
