[176490] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 1 16:48:58 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1411171533000.1026@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:43:17 -0800
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Justin M. Streiner =
<streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Nicolle wrote:
>=20
>> Is it unrealistic to hope for enough salesmen pressure on the =
corporate
>> ladder to make such moronic attitude be reversed in the short term ?
>=20
> 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 =3D less commission for the affected sales person.
>=20
> jms
Which is why there is NO Arista gear in my network=E2=80=A6 They lose =
sales of costly routers as well as optics to any customer who doesn=E2=80=99=
t want to promote this behavior.
It boils down to how much you want to tolerate/support/encourage this =
behavior.
If you feel strongly like I do that such behavior is aberrant and should =
be strongly discouraged, then vote with your $$$ and don=E2=80=99t buy =
from vendors that do that. Let your vendors that you don=E2=80=99t buy =
from know why they lost the sale.
I=E2=80=99ve found that showing a vendor a price-redacted copy of the PO =
to the other vendor can often lead to changes in the way they approach =
the next sales cycle.
Owen
