[134758] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Whynott)
Mon Jan 10 16:30:48 2011
From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>
To: Thomas Donnelly <tad1214@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <op.vo32lwi8wjyiia@osprey>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling you=
r sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten =
the tech on the phone. Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the =
clout to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor. his=
pay comes from you, you pay him, he works for 2.
-g
On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote:
>
> 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 router?=
"
>
> 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-Intero=
perability.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" =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 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 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 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 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
>>> Avaya
>>>>> 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/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 tried
>>> to use
>>>>>> 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.
>>> Then
>>>>>> 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
>>> 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 firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our
>>> firmware
>>>>>> 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, 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 distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was
>>> 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/
>
--
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.
