[134757] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Donnelly)
Mon Jan 10 16:16:09 2011
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600
From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU158-w56696A3677B43628EE789ADC0E0@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim =
<brandon.kim@brandontek.com> wrote:
>
>
> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"=
..
>
>
>
> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that=
, =
> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco route=
r?"
I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an =
engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying =
another vendor they raise an eyebrow.
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca
>> To: brandon.kim@brandontek.com
>> CC: khomyakov.andrey@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>
>> 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-Inte=
roperability.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 support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to=
=
>> do this" =E2=80=A6 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 as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
>> > of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason =
=
>> you pointed out, get all Cisco!
>> >
>> > How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are =
>> being sincere(sarcasm).
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy the=
ir =
>> 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 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, 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 sa=
y =
>> 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 an=
d =
>> Avaya
>> >> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling =
>> between
>> >> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT an=
d
>> >> 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/financial
>> >> 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 trie=
d =
>> to use
>> >>> another vendor for internal L2 needs, we would be reminded why i=
t =
>> was a bad
>> >>> choice down the road, due to hardware reliability, support issu=
es,
>> >>> multiple and ongoing software bugs, architectural design choices=
. =
>> Then
>> >>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision. This is not t=
o =
>> 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 comforta=
ble
>> >>> deploying 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 oppos=
ed =
>> to
>> >>> trying Juniper for routing, I know of a few shops who do and the=
y =
>> have been
>> >>> pleased thus far. I've little or no experience with many of t=
he =
>> other
>> >>> vendors, and I'm sure they have good offerings, but I won't be =
=
>> beta
>> >>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade o=
ur =
>> firmware
>> >>> on our core equipment several times in one year=E2=80=A6).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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, a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on =
>> options,
>> >>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more=E2=80=A6
>> >>>
>> >>> -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. An=
y =
>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it wa=
s =
>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this=
=
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. =
>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message =
=
>> may not be that of the organization.
> =
-- =
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
