[176168] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Mon Nov 17 15:31:54 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:31:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <546A3A64.6070705@ceriz.fr>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle wrote:
> What are other arguments against vendor lock-in ? Is there any argument
> FOR such locks (please spare me the support issues, if you can't read
> specs and SNMP, you shouldn't even try networking) ?
>
> Did you ever experience a shift in a vendor's position regarding the use
> of compatible modules ?
In the case of some vendors (yes, you again, Cisco), the shift has been in=
=20
the wrong direction.
Some vendors treat optics as just a tool to do a job, and price=20
accordingly. Those vendors tend to have fairly relaxed policies re:=20
working with non-$vendor optics, as well.
Other vendors treat optics as a cash cow^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprofit center, and=
=20
also price accordingly. Those vendors tend to scream bloody murder if a=20
non-$vendor optic is encountered.
Beyond that, I'd say you've covered all of the logical reasons why vendor=
=20
lock-in is a bad idea, but as others have mentioned in this thread, those=
=20
attitudes tend to change at a ridiculously slow pace, and only when forced=
=20
by market conditions.
jms
