[134724] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Whynott)
Mon Jan 10 11:53:13 2011
From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>
To: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:52:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1177151411.1544.1294676497222.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3. Al=
ways Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
from my personal experience, each time we took a chance and tried to use a=
nother vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was a bad=
choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues, mult=
iple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. Then for th=
e next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to say Cisco gear=
has been without its issues, but they are much fewer and handled better w=
hen stuff hits the fan.
the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable deploy=
ing for internal enterprise switching, including HPC requirements which is=
not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has always been Cisco=
for edge routing/firewalling, but i wouldn't be opposed to trying Juniper=
for routing, I know of a few shops who do and they have been pleased thus=
far. I've little or no experience with many of the other vendors, and=
I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be beta testing their firm=
wares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our firmware on our core equi=
pment several times in one year=85).
Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the smart net co=
ntracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with unrestricted license =
and contract costs over 2k, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on options, wi=
th a yearly renewal of about 15k or more=85
-g
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> We have traditionally been a Cisco shop, but we are starting to move towa=
rd Juniper for much of our needs, and will be recommending Juniper as an al=
ternative for customers' needs. From a technical point of view, I find the =
configurations to be simpler and easier to understand, and I like the fact =
that most everything runs the same OS, with the same interface. From a fina=
ncial point of view, Juniper tends to be less expensive for more performanc=
e, and their support contracts are much cheaper.
>
> All that said, and as other's have said, Cisco is always a safe choice, p=
articularly since many people are familiar with them.
>
> -Randy
>
> --
> | Randy Carpenter
> | Vice President, IT Services
> | Red Hat Certified Engineer
> | First Network Group, Inc.
> | (419)739-9240, x1
> ----
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> 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
>
--
This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged=
information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or dist=
ribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intende=
d is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, pleas=
e contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other =
information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.
