[176171] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Mon Nov 17 15:50:31 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:50:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <80801.1416257099@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:50 -0500, "Justin M. Streiner" said:
>
>> No salesperson is likely to do that for you. They know only to well that
>> eliminating vendor lock-in means they will lose sales on artificially
>> costly optics from $vendor to a lower-cost rival. Less sales = less
>> commission for the affected sales person.
>
> I suspect that losing the commission on a few $6digit chassis sales is worse
> than losing the commission on a $3digit optic?
That turns into a forest > trees problem. Many salescritters don't think
about the larger picture, or the responsible business units don't care
about what affects other business units. Also, in the 10G-and-up world,
most of those optics are a lot more than $3digits.
jms
