Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making

Mon Nov 7 17:03:32 UTC 2005

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Eric Germann wrote:
> > Looks like vendor J is going to benefit from the issues laid out for
> > Vendor C.
> >
> > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/110405-juniper-cisco-hacker.html
> Cisco, Juniper, or vendor "X".   We all benefit by having "genetic
> diversity" in our routing/switching systems.  I have been bit hard,
> as many of us on this thread have been bit, by bugs in vendor
> software/hardware.  Support your IETF!  Don't use proprietary
> protocols and insist on interoperability.  If you have the
> wherewithal install at least two different vendors for your critical
> services.  Then make them play nice together!

How do the operators/engineers explain to 'management', or whomever asks,
the 'training issues' that always crop up when more than one vendor are
proposed? Has anyone had good luck with this arguement? (my answer is sort
of along the lines of: "Its just a router, no matter the vendor and they
all have command-line help" but that's not always recieved well :) )

Just curious as I'm sure there are folks stuck in an all vendor X shop who
look over the electronic fence and see vendor Y with 'so much better' or
'so much faster' or 'so much more blinkly lighty'... and try to have their
management agree to purchasing new devices :)