[134756] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Mon Jan 10 15:40:04 2011
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <greg.whynott@oicr.on.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CE2A1276-C4C9-4C1F-B9B2-C720F8113D9F@oicr.on.ca>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>, khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"..
ha! Funny if you responded with=2C "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that=2C=
I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to=2C to return this Cisco router?=
"
> From: Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca
> To: brandon.kim@brandontek.com
> CC: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com=3B nanog@nanog.org
> Date: Mon=2C 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>=20
> just a side note=2C HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt w=
ith in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solution=
s. they have PDF booklets on many things we would run into during work. =
for example=2C setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear=2C ( http://cdn.=
procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoperability.pdf =
).
>=20
> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to hel=
p us. this was a few years back tho=2C things may of changed. I'd ask su=
pport "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=
"..
>=20
> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>=20
> -g
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Jan 10=2C 2011=2C at 3:04 PM=2C Brandon Kim wrote:
>=20
> >
> > 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
> > of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason you =
pointed out=2C get all Cisco!
> >
> > How convenient though for Cisco to do that=2C I wonder if they are bein=
g sincere(sarcasm).
> >
> > Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their s=
tuff...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 anoth=
er vendor.
> >
> > I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least tried=
their 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
> >>
> >> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say th=
at
> >> 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 si=
des.
> >> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and Av=
aya
> >> phones=2C TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon=2C link bundling be=
tween
> >> juniper EX and Cisco=2C 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=
=2C the
> >> rest should be cisco too=2C unless there is a very good technical/fina=
ncial
> >> reason for it=2C but you should be prepared to be your own help in tho=
se
> >> cases.
> >>
> >> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least in =
my
> >> experience.
> >>
> >> My $0.02
> >>
> >> Andrey
> >>
> >> On Mon=2C Jan 10=2C 2011 at 11:52 AM=2C Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oic=
r.on.ca>wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L=
3.
> >>> 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 =
was a bad
> >>> choice down the road=2C due to hardware reliability=2C support issu=
es=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 sa=
y Cisco
> >>> gear has been without its issues=2C but they are much fewer and hand=
led
> >>> 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 require=
ments
> >>> which is not CIsco branded=2C would be Force10 or Extreme. it has a=
lways
> >>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling=2C but i wouldn't be opposed=
to
> >>> trying Juniper for routing=2C 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 o=
ther
> >>> vendors=2C and I'm sure they have good offerings=2C but I won't be =
beta
> >>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our f=
irmware
> >>> 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 =
net
> >>> contracts. They come at a price. a little 5505 with unrestricted =
license
> >>> and contract costs over 2k=2C a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on opti=
ons=2C
> >>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more=85
> >>>
> >>> -g
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Andrey Khomyakov
> >> [khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com]
> >
>=20
>=20
> --
>=20
> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileg=
ed information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or di=
stribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally inten=
ded is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error=2C p=
lease contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions=2C conclusions or =
other information contained in this message may not be that of the organiza=
tion.
=
