[176170] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Nov 17 15:45:25 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:50 -0500."
<Pine.LNX.4.64.1411171533000.1026@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:44:59 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1416257099_39310P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:50 -0500, =22Justin M. Streiner=22 said:
> No salesperson is likely to do that for you. They know only to well th=
at=20
> eliminating vendor lock-in means they will lose sales on artificially=20
> costly optics from =24vendor to a lower-cost rival. Less sales =3D les=
s=20
> commission for the affected sales person.
I suspect that losing the commission on a few =246digit chassis sales is =
worse
than losing the commission on a =243digit optic?
--==_Exmh_1416257099_39310P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=oRyr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1416257099_39310P--
