[134750] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Mon Jan 10 15:06:32 2011
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com>, nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:04:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikuEdXdoxWMq2s9qOt3=HP=Sk=Xyogta5sqpO0M@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
To your point Andrey=2C
It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point as =
well. I remember reading for my CCNP one=20
of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you poin=
ted out=2C get all Cisco!
How convenient though for Cisco to do that=2C I wonder if they are being si=
ncere(sarcasm).
Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their stuff=
...I think it's a cop out though and you really should
try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to another v=
endor.=20
I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried the=
ir hardest to support you.....
> From: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
> Date: Mon=2C 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>=20
> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say that
> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and
> VendorX=2C we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both sides=
.
> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Avaya
> phones=2C TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon=2C link bundling betwe=
en
> juniper EX and Cisco=2C some obscure switching issues between CAT and
> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them anymore.
>=20
> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the network=2C=
the
> rest should be cisco too=2C unless there is a very good technical/financi=
al
> reason for it=2C but you should be prepared to be your own help in those
> cases.
>=20
> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in my
> experience.
>=20
> My $0.02
>=20
> Andrey
>=20
> On Mon=2C Jan 10=2C 2011 at 11:52 AM=2C Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.o=
n.ca>wrote:
>=20
> > I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3.
> > Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
> >
> > from my personal experience=2C each time we took a chance and tried to=
use
> > another vendor for internal L2 needs=2C we would be reminded why it wa=
s a bad
> > choice down the road=2C due to hardware reliability=2C support issues=
=2C
> > multiple and ongoing software bugs=2C architectural design choices. =
Then
> > for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not to say =
Cisco
> > gear has been without its issues=2C but they are much fewer and handle=
d
> > better when stuff hits the fan.
> >
> > the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable
> > deploying for internal enterprise switching=2C including HPC requireme=
nts
> > which is not CIsco branded=2C would be Force10 or Extreme. it has alw=
ays
> > been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling=2C but i wouldn't be opposed t=
o
> > trying Juniper for routing=2C I know of a few shops who do and they ha=
ve been
> > pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of the oth=
er
> > vendors=2C and I'm sure they have good offerings=2C but I won't be be=
ta
> > testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our fir=
mware
> > on our core equipment several times in one year=85).
> >
> >
> > Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the smart ne=
t
> > contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with unrestricted li=
cense
> > and contract costs over 2k=2C a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on option=
s=2C
> > with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more=85
> >
> > -g
> >
> >
> >
> --=20
> Andrey Khomyakov
> [khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com]
=
