[134754] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Whynott)
Mon Jan 10 15:20:10 2011
From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>
To: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: <BLU158-w35C152EE41DF30C2098D20DC0E0@phx.gbl>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>,
"khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com" <khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
just a side note, HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with =
in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. =
they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. for=
example, setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear, ( http://cdn.procurve=
.com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoperability.pdf ).
At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to help =
us. this was a few years back tho, things may of changed. I'd ask suppor=
t "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to do this" =85 =
to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"..
HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
-g
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>
> To your point Andrey,
>
> It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger point a=
s well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
> of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you po=
inted out, get all Cisco!
>
> How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are being si=
ncere(sarcasm).
>
> Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their stu=
ff...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=
vendor.
>
> I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried t=
heir hardest to support you.....
>
>
>
>> From: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>
>> 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, 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 Avay=
a
>> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling between
>> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and
>> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them anymore.
>>
>> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the network, =
the
>> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good technical/financia=
l
>> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in those
>> cases.
>>
>> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in my
>> experience.
>>
>> My $0.02
>>
>> Andrey
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>=
wrote:
>>
>>> 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, each time we took a chance and tried to u=
se
>>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why it was =
a bad
>>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issues,
>>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices. The=
n
>>> for the 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 when stuff hits the fan.
>>>
>>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable
>>> deploying for internal enterprise switching, including HPC requirement=
s
>>> which is not CIsco branded, would be Force10 or Extreme. it has alway=
s
>>> 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 oth=
er
>>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be beta
>>> 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, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on options,
>>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more=85
>>>
>>> -g
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Andrey Khomyakov
>> [khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com]
>
--
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.
