[144570] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ouch..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (N. Max Pierson)
Wed Sep 14 09:34:41 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110914125605.GA10496@pob.ytti.fi>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:33:22 -0500
From: "N. Max Pierson" <nmaxpierson@gmail.com>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Check out the White Papar referenced ....
http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/pdfs/Why_Cisco_Not_Juniper.pdf
It has Cisco's usual White Paper format and their copyright stamped on the
bottom which is also dates "9/11". If it's not Cisco or one of it's
affiliates, I would expect them to be contacting their so called "Marketing"
folks anytime now.
If this really is Cisco .... i'm with Owen and expect a presidential bid
announcement any second now ....
Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the
site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some
feedback :)
-
Max
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
>
> One:
> > Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do
> not
> > look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo
> all
> > over the site.
>
> Another:
> > Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy. My first thought was a
> > disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee. Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in
> > its cartoon strips all those years. Payback???
>
> I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and
> who
> has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it.
> Cisco
> marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what
> ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy
> and
> rackspace.
> Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our
> competitors
> networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will
> the
> pages be hosted.
>
>
> --
> ++ytti
>
>
