[176158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Faisal Imtiaz)
Mon Nov 17 13:30:55 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:28:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net>
To: Steve Naslund <SNaslund@medline.com>
In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401572054A0@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Vendor Lock's... this is nothing new, it has been in practice since the beg=
inning of the IT / Computer Industry...
We have seen this with Cables (old old days, Vax/PDP 11/ IBM Mainframes, we=
ll into the PC cycle), Floppy Drives, Hard Drivers etc etc etc...
To the best of my knowledge, none of this was ever won by argument with the=
vendor...This always changed with time...
When more and more people started deploying generic / non oem items, the ve=
ndors were forced to either turn a blind eye or forced to reconsider...
The big carrot or stick, the vendors always held with the Customers / Consu=
mers, was the warranty and or support.
If history has any advice to offer, it would be, if you are not dependent o=
n warranty or support issues from the Vendor, then go forward, do what you =
please, ..
:)
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Naslund" <SNaslund@medline.com>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:20:09 PM
> Subject: RE: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
>=20
> Let talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room and the #1 reason to hat=
e
> vendor locked optics. Some vendors (yes, Cisco I'm looking at you) want =
to
> charge ridiculously high prices for optic that are identical to generic
> optics other than the vendor lock. Maybe a better tactic would be to hav=
e
> the vendor explain to you why the vendor lock is necessary. You are afte=
r
> all the customer and don't owe them any explanations.
>=20
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of J=C3=A9r=C3=B4m=
e Nicolle
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 12:12 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I'm having a discussion with Arista, trying to explain to them why I _can=
't_
> buy any hardware unable to run with compatible optical modules.
>=20
> My points are :
>=20
> - I need specific modules, mostly *WDM and BiDi, some still unavailable i=
n
> their product line
>=20
> - I run at least two other vendors on every locations and can't stack up
> every spare optics for each of them, neither could remote-hands safely
> re-program optics to match a specific vendor when needed.
>=20
> - I have an established relationship with a trusted optics supplier,
> providing support, warranty and re-coding hardware for their entire
> (impressive) lineup. And this supplier is still 2-5x times cheaper than a=
ny
> vendor-labeled optics even with NFR-like discounts.
>=20
> Based on these points, I discourage every customers of ever using locked-=
in
> equipments, and forbid them on my own network. Of course, Arista can't be
> pleased because their hardware never stepped chord in my customer's
> networks. But they seem to deliberatly miss my points every time the subj=
ect
> comes up.
>=20
> What are other arguments against vendor lock-in ? Is there any argument F=
OR
> such locks (please spare me the support issues, if you can't read specs a=
nd
> SNMP, you shouldn't even try networking) ?
>=20
> Did you ever experience a shift in a vendor's position regarding the use =
of
> compatible modules ?
>=20
> Thanks !
>=20
> --
> J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle
> +33 6 19 31 27 14
>
