Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Greg Whynott Greg.Whynott at
Mon Jan 10 10:52:16 CST 2011

I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal L2/L3.  Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.

from my personal experience,  each time we took a chance and tried to use another vendor for internal L2 needs,  we would be reminded why it was a bad choice down the road,  due to hardware reliability,  support issues,  multiple and ongoing software bugs,  architectural design choices.  Then for the next few years I'd regret the decision.     This is not to say Cisco gear has been without its issues,  but they are much fewer and handled better when stuff hits the fan.

the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable deploying for internal enterprise switching,  including HPC requirements which is not CIsco branded,  would be Force10 or Extreme.  it has always been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling,  but i wouldn't be opposed to trying Juniper for routing,  I know of a few shops who do and they have been pleased thus far.    I've little or no experience  with many of the other vendors,  and I'm sure they have good offerings,  but I won't be beta testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our firmware on our core equipment several times in one year…).

Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the smart net contracts.   They come at a price.   a little 5505 with unrestricted license and contract costs over 2k,  a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on options,  with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more…


On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:

> We have traditionally been a Cisco shop, but we are starting to move toward Juniper for much of our needs, and will be recommending Juniper as an alternative for customers' needs. From a technical point of view, I find the configurations to be simpler and easier to understand, and I like the fact that most everything runs the same OS, with the same interface. From a financial point of view, Juniper tends to be less expensive for more performance, and their support contracts are much cheaper.
> All that said, and as other's have said, Cisco is always a safe choice, particularly since many people are familiar with them.
> -Randy
> --
> | Randy Carpenter
> | Vice President, IT Services
> | Red Hat Certified Engineer
> | First Network Group, Inc.
> | (419)739-9240, x1
> ----
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Hello gents:
>> I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of
>> a mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
>> Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all
>> about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco
>> based?
>> Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the "de facto" vendor
>> of choice? I'm not looking for so much "fanboy" responses, but more of
>> a real world
>> experience of what you guys use that actually work and does the
>> job.....
>> No technical questions here, just general feedback. I try to follow
>> the Tolly Group who compares products, and they continually show that
>> Cisco equipment
>> is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find
>> that so hard to believe.....
>> Thanks!
>> Brandon


This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.

More information about the NANOG mailing list