[134768] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Mon Jan 10 17:55:57 2011
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:54:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4D2B8C5D.20601@rollernet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come o=
ut with a way to do things first which then become a standard that
they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
Just some examples..... I'm not aware of too many other vendors that create=
their own protocol=2C in which they then become a standard?
> Date: Mon=2C 10 Jan 2011 14:46:53 -0800
> From: sethm@rollernet.us
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>=20
> On 1/10/2011 14:32=2C Jeff Kell wrote:
> > On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM=2C Greg Whynott wrote:
> >> 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=2C s=
etting up STP between Cisco and HP gear=2C ( http://cdn.procurve.com/train=
ing/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoperability.pdf ).
> >=20
> > Well=2C technically=2C the HP reference tells you how to convert your C=
isco
> > default PVST over to MST to match the HP preference.
> >=20
> > The handful of HP switches versus the stacks and stacks of production
> > Cisco requiring conversion to suit them was "intimidating" to say the
> > least :-)
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> To be fair=2C one is Cisco proprietary while the other is IEEE 802.1Q.
>=20
> ~Seth
>=20
=
